JUDGMENT
M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned termination order dated March. 5, 1992 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition). I have heard Sri D.B. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. The petitioner was appointed on October. 10, 1977 as Panchayat Raj Adhikari and was confirmed on April. 19, 1989. There was some complaint against him and the B.D.O. Shikohabad made a preliminary inquiry and submitted a preliminary report on January 1, 1991 against the petitioner. The petitioner was then charge-sheeted and the same B.D.O. who had submitted the preliminary report was appointed the Inquiry Officer and he submitted the charge-sheet dated October 1, 1991 vide Annexure-1 to this writ petition. In this inquiry the petitioner was found guilty, consequently his service was terminated.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rules of Natural Justice have been violated since the person holding the preliminary inquiry has also held the regular inquiry. This petition was admitted on April 20. 1992 but no counter affidavit has been filed and hence I am presuming the allegations in the petition to be correct.
4. In my opinion, the person who holds the preliminary inquiry cannot hold the regular inquiry as it would be violation of natural justice. A preliminary inquiry is a fact finding inquiry in which the facts are gathered and therefore the person who discovers these facts cannot be expected to act in a detached and unbiased manner in the regular inquiry. A regular inquiry is a quasi-judicial proceeding while a preliminary enquiry is not. It is therefore essential that the person holding the regular inquiry should be totally unbiased. A person holding the preliminary enquiry is bound to have been influenced during the course of factual investigation which he has made in the preliminary inquiry. In C.B. Pancley v. E.S.I. Corporation (1973 -I-LLJ-585) (Guj.) it was observed (in para 12) “The Officer who carried out the preliminary enquiry should be wholly debarred from acting as disciplinary’ authority for the obvious reason that he would all throughout be conscious of the fact that he had collected certain material at the preliminary enquiry and would be unconsciously prejudiced by the material gathered by him at the back of the delinquent Officer”.
5. In the circumstances I hold that the inquiry is vitiated and hence I set aside the impugned order dated March, 5, 1992 but I have it open to the respondent to hold a fresh inquiry by some other Officer other than the one who has held the preliminary inquiry. Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.