Bias, lack of authority, and denial of access to relied-upon files invalidated the disciplinary enquiry and compulsory retirement.

A disciplinary enquiry is invalid where the inquiring officer's conduct and surrounding circumstances create a real likelihood of bias, even without proof of actual prejudice. The enquiry also fails if the officer lacks authority under the governing order and rule to continue or complete the proceedings, and later authorisation cannot retrospectively cure the defect. Fair procedure further requires access to relevant relied-upon material; refusal to inspect earlier proceedings used to support the charge denied the delinquent a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. On these grounds, the compulsory retirement and the disciplinary outcome could not stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disciplinary enquiry was vitiated by bias on the part of the inquiring officer; (ii) whether the inquiring officer had authority to continue and complete the enquiry; (iii) whether the appellant was denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself by refusal of access to relevant files.

Issue (i): Whether the disciplinary enquiry was vitiated by bias on the part of the inquiring officer.

Analysis: The cumulative circumstances, including prior hostile steps taken against the appellant and the attempt to obtain a medical opinion to rid the department of his services, were sufficient to create a real likelihood of bias in the mind of a reasonable person. The proper test was whether a reasonable man, fully cognisant of the facts, would think that there was a real likelihood of prejudice. Surmise was insufficient, but the surrounding facts met that standard.

Conclusion: The enquiry was vitiated by bias and the orders founded on it were bad.

Issue (ii): Whether the inquiring officer had authority to continue and complete the enquiry.

Analysis: The Government had indicated that the Director himself should conduct the enquiry. Even if the then Director-in-charge was initially authorised, that authority ended when he ceased to hold that position. The subsequent authorisation could not operate retrospectively to validate an enquiry already completed by him as Deputy Director. The Director could not delegate the task contrary to the Government's express intention and the governing rule.

Conclusion: The inquiring officer had no authority to continue and complete the enquiry.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant was denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself by refusal of access to relevant files.

Analysis: Although some confidential records need not always be supplied, refusal to permit inspection of files containing earlier proceedings that were relied upon to support a charge deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity of defence. It was unreasonable to expect him to remember the details of proceedings from many years earlier without access to the files.

Conclusion: The appellant was denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary enquiry and the resulting compulsory retirement could not stand, and the decree in favour of the appellant was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary enquiry is invalid where the inquiring officer is reasonably likely to be biased, lacks authority to act under the governing order and rule, or denies the delinquent a fair opportunity to meet the material relied upon against him.

---