Officer Who Supervised Recruitment Can't Order Probe Into Its Irregularities: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed a preliminary enquiry into alleged irregularities in the 2013 recruitment process for the post of Junior Assistant, holding that an officer who supervised the recruitment could not subsequently order an enquiry into the same process when doing so gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

A single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand reiterated the principle that no one can be a judge in their own cause, observing that the question was not whether actual bias had influenced the decision, but whether the circumstances created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

“The principle of law captured in the legal maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa would certainly apply in the present case because one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence is that no one ought to be a Judge in his/her own cause,” the Court observed.

The Court was hearing petitions challenging a letter issued by the District Collector, Alwar, directing a preliminary enquiry into the recruitment process. The enquiry report subsequently formed the basis for proposing charge-sheets against the petitioners.

The recruitment process for Junior Assistants in 2013 was conducted under the directions and supervision of the then Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Zila Parishad, Alwar. The officer later became the District Collector, Alwar, and ordered an enquiry into alleged irregularities in the same recruitment process.

The committee constituted to conduct the preliminary enquiry found a prima facie case of irregularities, following which charge-sheets were proposed against the petitioners.

Challenging the enquiry, the petitioners argued that the proceedings violated the principles of natural justice, as the District Collector who ordered the enquiry had supervised the recruitment process in her capacity as the then CEO of Zila Parishad. They contended that the circumstances gave rise to an apprehension of bias.

Opposing the petitions, the State submitted that a decision had already been taken to exclude the concerned District Collector from the enquiry process and that a fresh enquiry would be conducted at the State level by other officers.

Rejecting the State's submission as a ground to sustain the existing proceedings, the Court observed that the concerned officer had been involved in the recruitment process and had subsequently ordered the preliminary enquiry into it.

“In the instant case, the respondent No. 6 was not only involved in the recruitment process but she also become the Judge for passing the order for conducting Preliminary Enquiry in regard to the aforesaid recruitment process, therefore, the possibility of her bias cannot be ruled out,” the Court said.

The Court held that the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and that the preliminary enquiry initiated at the concerned officer's instance was vitiated by the principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, it quashed the preliminary enquiry and the consequential proceedings, remitting the matter to the State to order a fresh enquiry without involving the concerned District Collector. The fresh exercise was directed to be completed expeditiously, within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.