Rule of Bias

Rule of Bias 11. The principle that No one can be a judge in his own case is also known as the rule of bias. In essence, it implies that an interested party shall not play a role in decision making. General rule that Inquiry Officer should not be a witness in the proceedings is a corollary of this rule. In this connection, it is interesting to note the following observation of Justice Das in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Nooh [1958 AIR 86, 1958 SCR 595] “…the spectacle of a judge hopping on and off the bench to act first as judge, then as witness, then as judge again to determine whether he should believe himself in preference to another witness, is startling to say the least.” 12. Generally three kinds of bias are considered as important: a) Personal Bias – One may be personally interested in the outcome of the case. If one is required to act as the complainant as well as the decision making authority, the outcome is likely to be biased b) Pecuniary bias – A person who has a monetary interest in an issue should not deal with the case. If one is a share holder in a company, it would be improper for him/her to decide whether a contract should be given to that company or some other company. c) Bias of subject matter – One who has certain strong notions/ views about certain subjects might not be suitable for deciding issues relating to that subject. For example one having strong male chauvinistic views, may not be suitable for dealing with issues relating to harassment of women employee 13. Rule of bias must be borne in mind at the time of appointment of Inquiry Officer and dealing with the request of the Charged Officer for change of Inquiry officer. 21 14. It is well established that the rule of bias has the following exemptions: Waiver Necessity Statutory Power 15. Where the party concerned has waived its right to question the proceedings for violation of the rule of bias, the issue cannot be raised subsequently. Similarly there may be situation when a person may not be able to withdraw from the decision making process due to reasons of necessity. In the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav and Ors. etc. etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. etc. etc. (Date of Judgment 10/05/1985) [1987 AIR 454, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 657, 1985 SCC (4) 417 1985 SCALE (1)1290], the petitioners before the High Court had challenged the selection made by the State Public Service Commission on, inter alia, the following ground: “The argument of the petitioners was that the presence of Shri R.C. Marya and Shri Raghubar Dayal Gaur on the interviewing committee gave rise to an impression that there was reasonable likelihood of bias in favour of the three candidates related to Shri R.C. Marya and Shri Raghubar Dayal Gaur and this had the effect of vitiating the entire selection process. This argument was sought to be supported by the petitioners by relying on the decisions reported in D.K. Khanna v. Union of India & Ors. Surinder Nath Goel v. State of Punjab and M. Ariffudin v. D.D. Chitaley & Ors.” 16. The above submission based on allegation of bias, was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground of necessity in the following terms: “The principle which requires that a member of a selection Committee whose close relative is appearing for selection should decline to become a member of the selection committee or withdraw from it leaving it to the appointing authority to nominate another person in his place, need not be applied in case of a Constitutional Authority like the Public Service Commission, whether Central or State. If a member of a Public Service Commission was to withdraw altogether from the selection process on the ground that a close relative of his is appearing for selection, no other person save a member can be substituted in his place. And it may sometimes happen that no other member is available to take the place of such member and the functioning of the Public Service Commission may be affected. When two more members of a Public Service Commission are holding a viva voce examination, they are functioning not as individuals but as the Public Service Commission. Of course, it must be made clear that when a close relative of a member of a Public Service Commission is appearing for interview, such member must withdraw from participation in the interview of that candidate and must not take part in any discussion in regard to the merits of that candidate and even the marks or credits given to that candidate should not be disclosed to him.” 22 17. Notwithstanding the above exemptions, it is essential that no person having any stake in the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings act as the Inquiry Authority nor exercise the powers of Disciplinary Authority.