Rule against bias barred an officer from hearing an appeal against his own earlier order, vitiating the decision.

A member who hears an appeal against an order previously made by him in another capacity must recuse, because the rule against bias applies to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings alike. The controlling test is a reasonable apprehension of bias, not proof of actual bias. As the same officer had passed the original order and later sat in appeal over it, the appellate order was vitiated by violation of natural justice and could not stand. Fresh adjudication by a different Bench was required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order was vitiated because the Member who heard the appeal had earlier passed the original order in the same matter, thereby attracting the rule against bias and requiring recusal.

Analysis: The impugned appellate order was passed by the same officer who, in his earlier capacity as Joint Commissioner (Executive), had made the original order under Section 10-B of the Trade Tax Act. The rule of natural justice that no person should be a judge in his own cause applies equally to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The controlling test is whether the circumstances create a reasonable apprehension of bias, not whether actual bias is proved. In such a situation, the adjudicating authority was bound to recuse himself from hearing the appeal against his own order.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision was vitiated by bias and could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The matter required fresh adjudication by a different Bench, and the revision succeeded on the ground of violation of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: A person cannot adjudicate an appeal against an order previously made by him in another capacity, because such participation creates a reasonable apprehension of bias and violates the rule of natural justice.

---