Accused the disciplinary officer of bias? Supreme Court says they shouldn't decide your case—even if you later withdrew the allegation

A disciplinary authority member who has previously faced allegations of bias from an employee should not decide that employee's case, even if those allegations were later withdrawn, the Supreme Court has ruled. Stressing that fairness must not only exist but also be seen to exist, the court set aside an employee's dismissal and ordered fresh disciplinary proceedings from the inquiry stage, according to a report by The Economic Times.

The ruling came in a case where disciplinary proceedings were initiated against an employee who was eventually dismissed from service after only one of the two charges against him was proved.

The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal order, saying the disciplinary process had procedural flaws, particularly in the role played by the Disciplinary Authority.

The employer challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the departmental inquiry had proved the charges against the employee and that dismissal was an appropriate punishment.

Don't Miss: From Friday pubbing to running clubs: Why Gen Z is making a surprising lifestyle switch in this country?

Employer said allegations were withdrawn

The employer also argued that the employee had withdrawn his earlier allegations against a woman member of the disciplinary authority. Relying on the doctrine of necessity, it said she was justified in continuing because she was the only competent authority available to decide on the employee's dismissal.

It was undisputed that the employee had earlier written a letter alleging bias against the disciplinary authority member and had also filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court raising concerns about her conduct. He later withdrew the petition.

Why the Supreme Court disagreed

The Supreme Court said the earlier allegations themselves were enough to raise concerns about fairness, even if they were later withdrawn.

"The most important aspect is that the person who was to take a final decision in the disciplinary proceeding, against whom already, he had expressed his lack of faith twice, first by sending a letter which may have been fabricated as far as the other signatory is concerned, but as far as he was concerned, he did write the letter and later on, also filed a writ petition before the High Court. It is not of much consequence, even if the writ petition was withdrawn because the levelling of serious charges against her by him had already taken place."

The court added that what matters is not whether the allegations were ultimately proved or withdrawn, but whether there is a reasonable perception of bias because of the earlier dispute.

'Justice should also be seen to be done'

The Supreme Court said the person against whom an employee has already expressed a lack of confidence should not be the final decision-maker in the disciplinary process. Allowing that to happen, it said, affects the credibility of the entire proceeding.

The court reminded authorities of the legal principle that: "Justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done."

"In the present case, where already the lady (disciplinary committee member) was at the receiving end of allegations made by him (the employee), the authorities ought to have been mindful of not leaving anything for him to be aggrieved about," the court said.

The Supreme Court revived the disciplinary proceedings from the stage where the inquiry report had already been submitted. It directed the present Disciplinary Authority, who is now a different person, to examine the report independently and proceed according to law.

The court also directed that the entire exercise should be completed as quickly as possible, preferably within three months.