AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the appellant urged that the enquiry officer was biased as he himself was a prosecution witness in the departmental proceedings.
The contention does not deserve to be accepted for more than one reason. For one, it is seen that the enquiry officer was a prosecution witness in another departmental proceeding pending against the appellant and not the present disciplinary proceeding. Merely because the enquiry officer was a prosecution witness in another departmental proceeding, on that basis alone, it cannot be held that the enquiry officer was biased. For two, and more importantly, there is no material at all that otherwise shows bias of the enquiry officer. Even otherwise there is nothing to indicate that any prejudice was caused to the appellant.
We are, thus, satisfied that the order passed by the Single Judge does not call for any interference.
As regards the appellant''s grievance about non-payment of subsistence allowance, the Single Judge has already passed an appropriate order. L.P.A. does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine.