'Justice Should Also Be Seen To Be Done' : Supreme Court Directs Another Disciplinary Authority To Decide After Employee Alleged Bias

Reaffirming the foundational principle of procedural fairness, the Supreme Court has held that a disciplinary authority against whom an employee has previously levelled allegations of bias must recuse from the proceedings, stressing that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan upheld the invalidity of the disciplinary proceedings conducted by an authority against a delinquent employee, who had earlier expressed a lack of faith in her. The Court emphasized that where a disciplinary authority has already been the subject of allegations by the employee, the authorities must exercise caution to ensure that the process remains beyond reproach.

"We are reminded of the maxim that “justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done," the Court observed,

The case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of National Bal Bhawan. Following an inquiry, the employee was dismissed from service. The Delhi High Court set aside the dismissal order, holding that the decision suffered from procedural infirmities, particularly concerning the role of the Disciplinary Authority.

Challenging this decision, National Bal Bhawan approached the Supreme Court contending that the charges against the employee had been proved in the departmental proceedings and that the dismissal was proportionate. It was also argued that the employee had withdrawn earlier allegations against the Disciplinary Authority and that the doctrine of necessity justified her continuation in the role, as she was the only authority competent to take the decision at the relevant time

This employee had written a letter making allegations of bias against the disciplinary authority, and subsequently filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court raising grievances against her conduct.

Later on, though the petition was withdrawn, the Court said that this would not aid the authority as the levelling of serious charges against her was a fact which had already happened and couldn't be denied.

“…the person who was to take a final decision in the disciplinary proceeding, against whom already, he (delinquent employee) had expressed his lack of faith twice, first by sending a letter which though 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, a writ petition was also filed before the High Court.”, the court observed, pointing out that the relevant consideration is not the eventual outcome of such allegations, but the reasonable perception of bias arising from prior adversarial conduct.

In essence, the Court said that the decision-making process must be insulated from any perception of prejudice, and a person against whom the employee has expressed a lack of confidence should not be the final adjudicator. Failure to do so, the Court indicated, undermines the credibility of the entire proceeding.

While upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the dismissal, the Supreme Court clarified that the defect in the process was procedural rather than substantive. The Court noted that the inquiry itself had been conducted and that the charges warranted a proper decision by a competent and impartial authority.

Accordingly, the Court revived the disciplinary proceedings from the stage at which the inquiry report had been submitted and directed the present Disciplinary Authority, who is now a different person, to consider the report independently and proceed in accordance with law. The Court directed that the exercise be completed expeditiously, preferably within three month

Cause Title: NATIONAL BAL BHAWAN & ANR. V. KHAZAN CHAND & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 363

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. S. Rajappa, AOR Mr. R Gowrishankar, Adv. Ms. G Dhivyasri, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. E. R. Sumathy, AOR Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Adv. Mr. Harsh, Adv.