[2026:RJ-JP:25153] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2787/2022 URN: CW / 5331U / 2022 Shridhar Gupta S/o Late Sh. Radheshyam Gupta, R/o House No. 34, Arihant Colony, Patel Nagar, Alanpur Road, Sawai Madhopur Presently Posted As Patwari, Collectorate, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Divisional Commissioner, Department Of Revenue, Bharatpur. 3. Sub. District Collector, Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Rajawat for Mr. Guru Charan Singh Gill, AAG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 06/07/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 26.02.2015 (Annexure-4) whereby the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Vide order dated 26.05.2017 (Annex.-6), the said order was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and further by the Revisional Authority vide order dated 07.04.2021 (Annex.-9). The said orders have also been assailed in the present petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned dated 26.02.2015 is bad in the eyes of law for two reasons; firstly, it has been passed by the same Officer who was himself the complainant. Secondly, although a reply was filed by the petitioner on 26.02.2015, the same was not taken into consideration by the [2026:RJ-JP:25153] (2 of 4) [CW-2787/2022] said Officer and he proceeded on to impose the punishment on the very same date, i.e., 26.02.2015. 3. Counsel further submits that no person can be a judge of his own cause and hence, the proceedings initiated and concluded by the same Officer are ipso facto void. 4. Responding to the above arguments, counsel for the respondents submits that the ground pertaining to the incompetence of the Officer concerned cannot be permitted to be raised at this stage, as the same was never raised before either the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority. 5. Counsel submits that the non-raising of the ground at the appropriate stage amounts to a waiver. In support of his submission, Counsel placed reliance on the Apex Court Judgment in Manak Lal vs Dr. Prem Chand; AIR 1957 SCC 425. 6. So far as the non-consideration of the reply is concerned, counsel submits that in fact the same was filed after the order having been pronounced by the Officer concerned and hence, it could not be taken note of. 7. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 8. The fact that the Additional Collector who passed order impugned dated 26.02.2015 was himself the complainant in the present matter, is not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that the very same Additional Collector issued charge-sheet dated 13.01.2015 (Annexure-1) and further passed order impugned dated 26.02.2015. This Court is of the clear opinion that when the allegations were levelled by a particular Officer, enquiry ought to have been conducted by some other Officer as the concerned Officer who levelled the allegations would definitely enter the [2026:RJ-JP:25153] (3 of 4) [CW-2787/2022] status of a witness. The officer who levelled the allegations could himself not have been the person to decide the veracity of the said allegations. 9. As is the settled position of law, no person can be a judge of his own cause. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.; (1985) 4 SCC 417 observed and held as under: "We agree with the petitioners that it is one of the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence that no man can be a Judge in his own cause and that if there is a reasonable likelihood of bias it is "in accordance with natural justice and common sense that the justice likely to be so biased should be incapacitated from sitting". The question is not whether the judge is actually biased or in fact decides partially, but whether there is a real likelihood of bias. What is objectionable in such a case is not that the decision is actually tainted with bias but that the circumstances are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision. The basic principle underlying this rule is that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done and this rule has received wide recognition in several decisions of this Court. It is also important to note that this rule is not confined to cases where judicial power stricto sensu is exercised. It is appropriately extended to all cases where an independent mind has to be applied to arrive at a fair and just decision between the rival claims of parties. Justice is not the function of the courts alone; it is also the duty of all those who are expected to decide fairly between contending parties. The strict standards applied to authorities exercising judicial power are being increasingly applied to administrative bodies, for it is vital to the maintenance of the rule of law in a welfare state where the jurisdiction of administrative bodies in increasing at a rapid pace that the instrumentalities of the State should discharge their functions in a fair and just manner." 10. In view of the above settled position of law, order impugned dated 26.02.2015 been passed in contravention to the basic proposition of law, deserves interference by this Court. [2026:RJ-JP:25153] (4 of 4) [CW-2787/2022] 11. So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents is concerned, the same would not apply to the present case as herein, a bare perusal of the revision petition filed by the petitioner reveals that the ground regarding incompetency of the Inquiry Officer had specifically been raised by the petitioner. 12. The order impugned deserves interference by this Court also for the reason that although a reply was admittedly filed by the petitioner on 26.02.2015, the order records a finding that no reply was filed. The said finding being incorrect on the face of it, order impugned deserves to be set aside. 13. In view of the above overall analysis, the present writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 26.02.2025 (Annexure-4) deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. Order dated 26.05.2017 (Annexure-6) passed by the Appellate Authority as well as 07.04.2021 (Annexure-9) passed by the Revisional Authority are hereby quashed and set aside. As a consequence, punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment imposed upon the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising out from the present order. 13. The stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (REKHA BORANA),J 152/RASHMI