The petitioner challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order regarding his discharge enquiry, claiming the enquiry officer was biased despite his representations. The High Court found the allegation unjustified and the Tribunal's view not erroneous, dismissing the writ petition under Article 227.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023/RJJP/012251]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2595/2023
Prakash Chand Kumbhar S/o Shriya Ram, Aged 36 Years, R/o Gram Pakhar, Tehsil Laxmangarh Post Jaitpura District Alwar Ex. Bunglow Peon Under CTE/TS Northern Western Railway Jaipur Mobile No.9636081064 Email:[email protected].
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
[2023/RJJP/012251]
[CW-2595/2023]
(2 of 3)
Order
26/05/2023
Heard.
Challenge to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) is based mainly on the ground that the Tribunal did not appreciate that once the petitioner has raised apprehension of bias against the enquiry officer, after remand, the same enquiry officer ought not to have been appointed to hold the enquiry. It is submitted that on account of bias, despite several representations made, they were not paid any heed to. In this manner, the enquiry conducted against the petitioner ought to be held vitiated on account of being biased and also in violation of principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on advance copy, would submit that there is no iota of material placed by the petitioner on record of the case before the Tribunal as to why the concerned officer/enquiry officer would be biased against the petitioner. It is submitted that despite several opportunities, the petitioner did not attend the enquiry and kept on making unreasonable demand for change of enquiry officer.
We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has found that the allegation of bias had only stuck on unjustified stand and the petitioner had been avoiding enquiry, though several opportunities were granted to him to participate in the enquiry to take all defenses possible.
The view taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or perversity. The order of the Tribunal is
[2023/RJJP/012251]
[CW-2595/2023]
(3 of 3)
under assail before this Court and this Court has examined the matter within the limited scope of interference available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no case is made out for interference of this Court.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
Sanjay Kumawat-12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order finding the petitioner's bias allegation unjustified.
Whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal suffers from perversity or error of jurisdiction.
Whether there is material to show the enquiry officer was biased against the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaFollowed¶33
Prakash Chand Kumbhar
Union Of India
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Anil Kumar Upman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
