[2025:RJ-JP:12465] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18151/2015 T.k. Mathew Son Of Shri T.v. Kurian, Former Junior Sales Assistant, Rajasthali Garihat, 28, Kedar Chatterjee Road, Behala, Kolkata. ----Petitioner Versus The Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited, A Govrenment Of Rajasthan Undertaking, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/03/2025 1. By way of filing of this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 05.09.2012 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order dated 25.04.2013 passed by the appellate authority. 2. By passing the impugned order dated 05.09.2012, the disciplinary authority has punished the petitioner, with penalty of removal from service against which the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal has been rejected vide order dated 25.04.2013 by the concerned Appellate Authority and the impugned order of removal of petitioner from service has been upheld. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed by Chairman-Cum-Managing Director i.e. Mr. Bhasker Chatterjee and when the appeal was submitted by the [2025:RJ-JP:12465] (2 of 3) [CW-18151/2015] petitioner before the statutory appellate authority, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 25.04.2013 by a committee of three members including the Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mr. Bhasker Chatterjee. Counsel submits that a person cannot be a Judge and cannot act as an Appellate Authority against his own order. Counsel submits that Mr. Bhasker Chatterjee could not be one of the members of appellate authority to decide the said appeal as he himself has passed the impugned order dated 05.09.2012. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice, and the order passed by the appellate authority is not tenable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that Mr. Bhasker Chatterjee is Chairman-cum-Managing Director of RAJSICO and he was not the sole authority who heard the appeal rather he was one of the member of a three members Committee who heard the appeal, hence, under these circumstances, the appellate authority has not committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 25.04.2013 and thus, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that the charge-sheet with the charge of remaining willfully absent was served upon the petitioner and after holding enquiry against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority took a decision to remove the petitioner from service vide order dated 05.09.2012. [2025:RJ-JP:12465] (3 of 3) [CW-18151/2015] 7. It is worthy to note here that the aforesaid order has been passed by one Mr. Bhasker Chatterjee who happens to be the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of RAJSICO, at the relevant time. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the disciplinary authority when the petitioner submitted statutory appeal before the appellate authority, the same was heard and decided by a Committee of three members including Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Mr. Bhasker Chatterjee. 9. It is the settled proposition of law that one cannot be a judge in his own cause. In the instant case Mr. Bhasker Chatterjee who happened to be the Chaiman-cum-Managing Director of RAJSICO has acted not only as a disciplinary authority but also as the appellate authority, and he cannot be a judge in his own case. Such action on the part of the appellate authority has violated the principles of natural justice. 10. In view of the reasons stated above, the instant writ petition stands allowed, the impugned order dated 25.04.2013 stands quashed and set aside the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the same afresh, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner expeditiously, as early as possible, not beyond of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/142