Fair post-decisional hearing requires neutrality; reassignment to another officer was upheld to avoid bias or prejudice.

A post-decisional hearing must be fair and effective, and where the same officer earlier issued the offence report and later handled the suspension-related hearing, reassignment to another officer may be justified to avoid any appearance of bias or prejudice. The Calcutta High Court accepted the narrower fairness-based approach and upheld the direction that a different officer hear the matter. The Court also noted that the order should not be treated as laying down any general legal principle or precedent, and the broader questions raised in the appeal were left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction to assign the post-decisional hearing to another officer was justified on the ground of fairness and absence of bias.

Analysis: The challenge arose from the department's contention that the same officer had issued the offence report and later dealt with the suspension-related hearing. The Court declined to examine the broader legal questions raised in the appeal and instead proceeded on the narrower basis that a post-decisional hearing must be effective and must not create even an iota of bias or prejudice in the decision-making process. In that context, the Court agreed with the Single Judge that another officer should hear the matter. The Court also stated that the order should not be treated as laying down any general legal principle or precedent.

Conclusion: The direction requiring a different officer to adjudicate the post-decisional notice was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order under challenge was sustained only to the extent of ensuring a fair post-decisional hearing, while the wider questions of law were left open.

Ratio Decidendi: A post-decisional hearing must be fair and effective, and where continuation before the same authority may create an appearance of bias or prejudice, assignment to another officer is justified.

---