Rajasthan High Court Quashes Suspension Order Of Jaipur Mayor, Says Enquiry Officer & Officer-In-Charge Cannot Be The Same Person

Rajasthan High Court has recently underscored that 'no one can be a judge of his own cause' while quashing the suspension order against the Mayor of Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Heritage) dated 22.09.2023 made under Section 39(6) of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009.

In allowing the Mayor's plea, a single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that there had been inherent defects in the preliminary enquiry and the enquiry report furnished by the enquiry officer. It was found that the enquiry officer herself was appointed as the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Local Bodies Department in a previous writ petition filed by the petitioner for challenging the initial suspension order.

The court observed that this action of the respondent authorities was a transgression of the well-established legal maxim 'Nemo Debet Esse Judex In Propria Sua Causa' (Justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done). It observed:

“Since the Enquiry Officer herself was the Officer-in-Charge of the case and had appeared as the OIC in the earlier Writ Petition No.12675/2023… this Court is of the considered opinion that real prejudice has been caused to the petitioner because such an act of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be beyond bias…. The Enquiry Officer has submitted her report on 16.08.2023, without getting the reply of the petitioner and treating the petitioner's application, seeking information and documents, as her reply…”

The bench sitting at Jaipur further pointed out that the adverse enquiry report was "prepared in haste" and the subsequent suspension order could create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the enquiry officer had acted in a dual capacity as the OIC, as well as the Enquiry Officer. 

Procedural fairness is a mandatory ingredient to protect an arbitrary action, the court added while referring to Canara Bank & Ors v. Debasis Das & Ors. (2003). The DDR who was already appointed as the enquiry officer should have been recused from the responsibility of acting as an officer in charge for the respondent authority in the writ petition that challenged the initial suspension order, the court opined.

The court also added that the enquiry officer, as a quasi-judicial authority, should act as an independent adjudicator and not as a representative of the department as laid down in apex court decisions of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) and Union of India & Ors. v. Ram Lakhan Sharma, (2018).

“The DDR was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 05.08.2023 to conduct enquiry against the petitioner and on 08.08.2023 and 10.08.2023 she was appointed as the OIC by the respondents to contest the matter against the petitioner before this Court in the earlier Writ Petition No.12675/2023…. the same OIC as Enquiry Officer, issued notice to the petitioner on 11.08.2023…”, the court observed in the order while also adding that the enquiry officer failed to apply her mind to the factual matrix. The mayor's application seeking more documents that might have enabled her to file a comprehensive reply to the show cause notice itself was treated as the suspended Mayor's reply to the show cause, the court further added.

The court pointed out that the role of the enquiry officer as the OIC indicated an 'interference in the matter' and showed a likelihood of biases.

“It is true that there are no Rules which regulate the duty of Enquiry Officer but it does not allege that the Rules of Natural Justice can be given 'go-bye'. It is the duty of the Enquiry Officer to uphold the interest of the enquiry proceedings by all fear and honourable means…”, the court added by referring to Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Ors. v. K.D. Ganapathi & Anr. 2011.

In Kokkanda B. Poondacha, the apex court held that if an advocate had reason to believe that he would be a witness in a case, then it is apt for the advocate not to accept the brief or appear for the parties in that case.

“The question is not that whether the authority was actually biased or decided partially, but when the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is likelihood of bias affecting the decision, then the proceedings cannot be upheld”, the court added while directing the respondent authorities to initiate fresh enquiry proceedings in accordance with the law, after appointing a new enquiry officer.

The mayor was initially suspended by the state government after the concerned cabinet minister approved a proposal to that effect made by the Director of the Department of Local Self-Bodies. There was a raid in the petitioner's house by the Anti-Corruption Bureau ("ACB") before the initiation of disciplinary action.

Allegedly, the raid revealed that her husband had demanded Rs 2,00,000/- for the grant of a patta to the complainant since the relevant patta file was in her husband's possession at the time of the raid. Moreover, the ACB raid also recovered a sum of Rs 40,00,000/- from the house of the petitioner Mayor. Subsequently, a case was registered against the mayor under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Case Title: Munesh Gurjar W/o Sushil Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15551/2023

Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Raj)

Click Here To Read/ Download Order