{"id":41242,"date":"1993-05-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-05-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993"},"modified":"2015-08-12T05:09:43","modified_gmt":"2015-08-11T23:39:43","slug":"rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993","title":{"rendered":"Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram … on 14 May, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram … on 14 May, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 2155, \t\t 1993 SCR (3) 863<\/div>\n
Author: G Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, G.N. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRATTAN LAL SHARMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMANAGING COMMITTEE, DR.\t HARI RAM (CO-EDUCATION)HIGHER SECON\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/05\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, G.N. (J)\nVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N.(CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 AIR 2155\t\t  1993 SCR  (3) 863\n 1993 SCC  (4)\t10\t  JT 1993 (3)\t487\n 1993 SCALE  (2)924\n\n\nACT:\n%\nNatural Justice-Bias-Reasonable apprehension of bias- Member\nof  enquiry  committee deposing in support of  a  charge  on\nbehalf of administration-Held, it is a flagrant violation of\nprinciples  of\tnatural\t justice-Nemo Debet  esse  judex  in\npropria\t cause-Punjab  Aided Schools (Security\tof  Service)\nAct, 1969, S. 3,\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant,\t appointed Principal of Dr.  Hari  Ram\t(Co-\neducation)   Higher  Secondary\tSchool,\t was  placed   under\nsuspension  and a charge-sheet containing 12 charges  issued\nto him.\t Charge No. 12 accused him of use of an\t unaccounted\nsum  of\t Rs. 129.37, given to him by Maru  Ram,\t teacher-in-\ncharge of amalgamated fund.\nThe  enquiry committee constituted comprised 3\tmembers,  of\nwhich the said Maru Ram was a member.  Maru Ram deposed as a\nwitness for the administration in support of charge no.\t 12.\nThe  appellant's objection to the inclusion of Maru  Ram  on\nthe enquiry committee was overruled, and he was found guilty\nof  some  of the charges including the said charge  and\t the\nManaging Committee proposed to dismiss him from service.\nThe  appellant's application for inspection of documents  to\nenable\thim  to make his representation\t before\t the  Deputy\nCommissioner-the  confirming authority under S.3(2)  of\t the\nPunjab\tAided  Schools (Security of Service)  Act,  1969-was\nrejected by the Managing Committee, the Deputy\tCommissioner\nand the Commissioner.\nThe  appellant then filed a writ petition in the High  Court\nfor quashing the enquiry report and the orders passed by the\nManaging   Committee,  the  Deputy  Commissioner   and\t the\nCommissioner.\nThe  Managing  Committee, opposing the\tpetition,  contended\nthat  the  enquiry  committee was not  partial\tor  inimical\ntowards the appellant.\tIt was\n864\ncontended  that maru Ram was the only teacher member of\t the\nManaging  Committee  other  than  the  appellant   himself-,\ntherefore  only\t Maru  Ram could be  taken  in\tthe  enquiry\ncommittee  as a representative of the teachers'\t union.\t  It\nwas  further  contended\t that  though  the  application\t for\ninspection  had\t been made after his dismissal, he  had\t not\nbeen refused permission for inspection; he had been asked to\nindicate the rules under which he could see the file.\nA Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  allowed\nthe petition on the ground that the departmental  proceeding\nwas  vitiated by the flagrant violation of natural  justice.\nSince  one  of the members of the Managing  Committee  acted\nboth as a Judge and as a witness to prove one of the charges\nagainst\t the  appellant despite the objections made  by\t the\nappellant  against  the\t inclusion of  such  member  in\t the\ncommittee,  the entire enquiry proceeding was vitiated.\t  He\nheld  that the bias continued and percolated to\t the  entire\nproceeding  and should not be restricted to  charge  no..12.\nSince  the enquiry report was required to be  considered  by\nthe  Deputy  Commissioner for the purpose of  affirming\t the\nproposed order of dismissal, the fact of bias and  prejudice\nwas  required  to be considered and the\t appellant  was\t not\ndebarred  from raising such vital plea of bias in  the\twrit\nproceeding.   The  decision arrived at on the  basis  of  an\nillegal and biased enquiry could not be sustained.\nOn  appeal,  the Division Bench reserved the  order  of\t the\nSingle Judge.  It   held  that the plea of bias\t was  vague;\nthat  the  appellant  had  waived  it  by  not\traising\t  it\nspecifically\tbefore\t the   Deputy\t Commissioner\t and\nCommissioner,  and that as the Deputy Commissioner  was\t not\ninfluenced by charge no.12 only but was impressed with\tsome\nother  charge, no interference with the impugned  order\t was\ncalled for.\nAllowing the appeal, this Court,\nHELD: 1. In Administrative Law, Rules of natural justice are\nfoundational  and  fundamental concepts and the law  is\t now\nwell settled that the principles of natural justice are part\nof the legal and judicial procedures. (871 E)\nFranklin  v. Minister of Town and Country Planning [1947]  1\nALL  ER 289; Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner\t of  Police,\nCalcutta<\/a> [1961] 3 SCR 135; Breen v. Amalgamated\t Engineering\nUnion  [1971] All ER 1148; Maneka Gandhi v. Union  of  India<\/a>\n[1978] 2 SCR 621; State of Orissa v. Bina-pani Dei<\/a>    [1987]\n2  SCR 625 and A.K.Kraipak v. Union of India & Ors.<\/a>[1970]  1\nSCR 457,\n865\nreferred to.\n2.Since the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules,\nit  is not possible and practicable to precisely define\t the\nparameters of natural justice. (872-H)\nRussel v.Duke of Norfolk [1949] ALL ER109; Union of India v.\nP.K.  Roy<\/a>  [1968] 2 SCR 186; A.K.Kraipak v. Union  of  India<\/a>\n[1970]\t1 SCR 457 and Prof.  Wade.  Administrative Law,\t edn\n1988 p. 503 referred to.\n3.One of the cardinal principles of natural justice is: Nemo\ndebet  esse judex in propria causa: No man shall be a  judge\nin his own cause.  The deciding authority must be  impartial\nand without bias. (874-C)\nSecretary  tit Government Transport Department v.  Munuswamy<\/a>\n[1988]\tSuppl.\t SCC 651 and State of U.P.  v.\tMohd.\tNooh<\/a>\n[1958] SCR 595, referred to. (874-C)\nFor  appreciating  a  case of personal\tbias,  the  test  is\nwhether\t there was a real likelihood of a bias\teven  though\nsuch bias has not in fact taken place.\nDe Smith, Judicial Review of Administrative Action [1980] p.\n269  R\tSunderlal  Justices [1924] 1 KB 357 at\t373;  R.  v.\nSussex\tJustices [1924] 1 KB 256 at 259; Halsbury's Laws  of\nEngland (4th Edn.) Vol.2, para 551 and Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem\nChand<\/a> [1957] SCR 575, referred to.\nIt is in this sense that it is often said that justice\tmust\nnot only be done but must also appear to be done. (875-E)\n4.In the facts of this case, there was not only a reasonable\napprehension  of bias (if one of the members of the  enquiry\ncommittee,  but such apprehension became real when Maru\t Ram\nappeared as a witness against the appellant, and. thereafter\nproceeded  with\t the enquiry proceeding as a member  of\t the\nenquiry\t  committee  to\t uphold\t the  correctness   of\t his\ndeposition as a Judge. (875-F)\n5.The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition  improperly\non  a  technical ground that the plea of bias could  not  be\nraised\tin  a  writ proceeding especially when\tit  was\t not\nspecifically  taken before the Deputy Commissioner  and\t the\nCommissioner;  more so when this defence could be waived  by\nthe person suffering the prejudice. (876-E)\n866\nGenerally  a  point  not  raised  before  the  tribunal\t  or\nadministrative\tauthorities may not be allowed to be  raised\nfor the first time in writ proceedings.\t Which is  equitable\nand discretionary and interference is not a matter of course\nparticularly when the plea sought to be raised for the first\ntime in a writ proceedings requires investigation of  facts.\n(876-A)\nA.M.  Allison v. State of Assam., AIR 1957 SC 227,  referred\nto.\nBut  if\t the plea goes to the root of the  question  and  is\nbased  on  admitted and uncontroverted facts  and  does\t not\nrequire\t any further investigation into a question of  fact,\nit is only desirable that a litigant should not he shut\t out\nfrom raising such plea. (pp. 19-20) (876-C)\nA.S. Arunachalam Pillai v. M\/s.\t Southern Roadways Ltd.\t AIR<\/a>\n1960 SC 1191 and The Cantonment Board v. Pyarelal<\/a> 1965 3 SCR\n341, referred to.\n6.The  bias  of\t Shri Maru Ram, one of the  members  of\t the\nenquiry\t committee  had percolated  throughout\tthe  enquiry\nproceeding  thereby  vitiating\tthe  principles\t of  natural\njustice\t and the findings made by the enquiry committee\t was\nthe product of a biased and prejudiced mind.  The illegality\ncommitted  in  conducting the departmental  proceedings\t has\nleft an indelible stamp of infirmity on the decision of\t the\nManaging Committee since affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner\nand the Commissioner. (876-G)\nState of U.P. v. Mohd.\tNooh.<\/a> [1958] SCR 595, relied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL.,\t APPELATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal  No.  2860  of
\n1993.\n<\/p>\n
From the Judgment and Order dt. 31.10.1990 of the Punjab and
\nHaryana High Court in L.PA. No. 1427 of 1982.
\nK. Lahiri and J.D. Jain\t for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
D.V. Sehgal and K.K. Mohan for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nG.N. RAY, J. Special leave granted.  Heard learned  counsels
\nfor the parties.\n<\/p>\n
867<\/span><\/p>\n
On  the application for special leave to appeal\t notice\t was
\nissued\tby this Court on the respondents indicating  therein
\nthat  the said application for special leave to appeal\twill
\nbe  disposed  of finally at the notice stage itself  on\t the
\nshort  question as to why the disciplinary  proceedings\t and
\nthe order passed therein should not be set aside and a fresh
\nenquiry\t should\t be ordered on the ground that\tone  of\t the
\nparticipants  of  the enquiry committee\t was  biased.\tSuch
\nnotice was served on the respondents and the respondent Nos.
\n1  and 4 have entered appearance through a’ learned  counsel
\nand  also  filed  counter affidavit  to\t the  special  leave
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\twas appointed as Principal of Dr.  Hari\t Ram
\n(Co-education)\tHigher Secondary School, Datarpur in  Tehsil
\nof  Dasuya  in the District of Hoshiarpur.   He\t was  placed
\nunder  suspension  by  the Managing Committee  of  the\tsaid
\nSchool and charge sheet containing 12 charges was issued  to
\nthe appellant.\tCharge No. 12 was to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “the  following amounts are reported  to\thave
\n\t      been used by you and are unaccounted for:–
\n\t      A sum of Rs. 129.37 on account of\t amalgamated
\n\t      fund for the’ month of December, 1969 given to
\n\t      you   by\tShri  Maru  Ram\t teacher’   incharge
\n\t      amalgamated fund.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  school  authorities  appointed  an\t enquiry   committee
\nconsisting of three members of which the said Shri Maru\t Ram
\nwas one of the members.\t It is an admitted position that the
\nsaid  Shri  Maru  Ram appeared as a witness  in\t support  of
\ncharge\tNo.  12\t on behalf of  administration  in  the\tsaid
\nenquiry proceedings.  The appellant raised an objection\t for
\ninclusion  of  the  said  Shri\tMaru  Ram  in  the  enquiry,
\ncommittee  but\tthe  said objection  of\t the  appellant\t was
\noverruled by the Enquiry’ Committee inter alia on the ground
\nthat
\n\t      “similarly  your objection to the\t appointment
\n\t      of  Shri Maru Ram in the enquiry committee  is
\n\t      ill-conceived,   unfounded,  unjustified\t and
\n\t      invalid  because, Shri Maru Ram is as  good  a
\n\t      member  of the Managing Committee as  any\t one
\n\t      else and as such as member is entitled to\t act
\n\t      on  any sub committee formed by  the  Managing
\n\t      Committee\t and even perhaps more in this\tcase
\n\t      because  to  give\t you a fair  trial,  it\t was
\n\t      necessary\t  to   have  a\t teachers’   union’s
\n\t      representative on the Enquiry Committee.\tShri
\n\t      Maru Ram represented the Union of the staff of
\n\t      the school and is thus your own representative
\n\t      as such.”\n<\/p>\n
868<\/span><\/p>\n
There is no dispute to the fact that the said Shri Maru\t Ram
\nhimself\t deposed  in the enquiry proceeding  in\t support  of
\nCharge No. 12 against the appellant and he also participated
\nas  one\t of  the members of  the  Enquiry  Committee.\tTile
\nEnquiry Committee found the appellant guilty on some of\t the
\ncharges\t including  the said charge No.\t 12.   The  Managing
\nCommittee  proposed to dismiss the appellant  from  service.
\nIt is not disputed that the disciplinary proceeding  against
\nthe  petitioner is to be carried out in accordance with\t the
\nprovisions of the Punjab Aided (Schools Security of Service)
\nAct, 1969.  Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act  is
\nset out hereunder:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “No order of dismissal or removal or reduction
\n\t      in  rank\tof  an employee\t shall\ttake  effect
\n\t      unless  it  has been confirmed by\t the  Deputy
\n\t      Commissioner  who may refuse to do so,  if  in
\n\t      his opinion the provisions of Sub section\t (1)
\n\t      have not been complied with.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  view of such provision in the aforesaid Act, the  report
\nof the Managing Committee and the proposal for dismissal  of
\nthe appellant from service were sent for confirmation by the
\nDeputy\tCommissioner.  The appellant being informed  of\t the
\ndecision  of  the  Managing Committee to  dismiss  him\tfrom
\nservice\t  subject   to\tthe  confirmation  by\tthe   Deputy
\nCommissioner,\tHoshiarpur,  made  an  application  to\t the
\nPresident  of the Managing Committee for the  inspection  of
\nthe  stipend  register and the office file of  the  case  of
\nDecember  29,  1970′   so  that\t he  could  make  a   proper
\nrepresentation\tto  the Deputy Commissioner  of\t Hoshiarpur.
\nThe Managing Committee. however, did not give inspection  to
\nthe   appellant\t of  the  said\trecords\t but  the   original
\napplication  made by the appellant to the President  of\t the
\nManaging  Committee was not entertained but then  and  there
\nreturned  with the remarks “under what rules do you wish  to
\nsee the file please.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t       Sd\/- R.D. Sharma
\n\t\t\t\t\t 29.12. 1970.”\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant there after submitted his  representation  to
\nthe  Deputy  Commissioner  against  the\t proposed  order  of
\ndismissal of the appellant and it was urged by the appellant
\nthat  the Managing Committee acted in a\t prejudicial  manner
\nand  had  been\ttrying to urge his  dismissal  on  unfounded
\ngrounds.    By\torder  dated  March  18,1971,\tthe   Deputy
\nCommissioner  rejected the representation of the  appellant.
\nThe  appellant\tthereafter preferred an appeal\tagainst\t the
\norder of con on by the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section
\n(5)  of\t Section  3 of the said\t Act  to  the  Commissioner,
\nJullundur Division but such appeal was also dismissed by the
\nCommissioner on December 3, 1973.  The appellant  thereafter
\nmoved a Writ
\n869<\/span>
\nPetition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana being Civil
\nWrit  Petition\tNo.  II 21 of 1974 inter  alia\tpraying\t for
\nqushing\t the  enquiry report and the orders  passed  by\t the
\nManaging Committee, Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur and\t the
\nCommissioner,  Jullundur Division.  The\t Managing  Committee
\ncontested  the\tsaid Writ Petition  by\tentering  appearance
\nthough\tParas  Ram, Local Manager-cumVice President  of\t the
\nManaging Committee and the counter affidavit was also  filed
\nto  the Writ Petition.\tThe Managing Committee disputed\t the
\ncontention  of the appellant that the enquiry committee\t was
\nbiased, partial and inimical towards the appellant and\tShri
\nMaru Ram, a member of the staff with whom the appellant\t was
\nnot on good terms and who was the root cause of the  trouble
\nbecame\tthe  member of the enquiry committee and  after\t his
\ninclusion  the enquiry was summed up in a slip-shed  manner.
\nIn  the counter affidavit it was contended on behalf of\t the
\nManaging Committee that in the Managing Committee members of
\nthe  staff  are\t required to be\t taken.\t  Two  members\tfrom
\nteaching staff were taken on the Managing Committee and\t the
\nappellant-Principal  was  one of the members and  the  other
\nmember was the said Shri Maru Ram.  As the appellant himself
\nwas  the accused, the only member who could be taken in\t the
\nenquiry\t committee  was\t the  other  representative  of\t the
\nteachers  union, Shri Maru Ram.\t It was further stated\tthat
\nthe  appellant\thad raised objection  before  the  Committee
\nagainst\t his  inclusion in the enquiry\tcommittee  but\tsuch
\nobjection  was not entertained, and it was stated  that\t the
\nenquiry\t committee was neither partial nor inimical  towards
\nthe  appellant\tand the enquiry committee was  comprised  of
\nthree members including the President Shri B.B. Kashyap\t and
\nthe  said  Shri\t Maru Ram, teachers  representative  in\t the
\nManaging  Commiittee.\tIn  the counter\t affidavit,  it\t was
\nfurther stated that the appellant had applied for inspection
\nof  the stipend register but such demand of  inspection\t was
\nmade  after  the appellant was dismissed.   Even  then,\t the
\ninspection  was not denied and the appellant had been  asked
\nto indicate under what rules he could see the file.  At this
\nstage, it may be indicated that when the appellant had asked
\nfor inspection, there was no question of the appellant being
\ndismissed  because under the said Act the proposed order  of
\ndismissal   cannot  take  effect  until\t such  proposal\t  is
\nconfirmed  by the Deputy Commissioner.\tThe appellant  asked
\nfor   inspection   of  the  register   to   make   effective
\nrepresentation\tbefore\tthe Deputy Commissioner.   But\tsuch
\ninspection  was\t not given and the  application\t itself\t was
\nreturned then and there apparently on the ground of  absence
\nof any specific rule for such inspection.\n<\/p>\n
A Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  allowed
\nthe  Writ  Petition  on the  ground  that  the\tdepartmental
\nproceeding  was vitiated for the flagrant violation  of\t the
\nprinciple  of natural justice.\tThe learned Judge  indicated
\nthat Charge No. 12 was sought to be proved by Shri Maru\t Ram
\nhimself\t who  appeared\tas  a  witness\tbefore\tthe  enquiry
\ncommittee although he was one of the
\n870<\/span>
\nmembers of the enquiry committee.  Since one of the  members
\nof  the\t Managing Committee acted both as a Judge and  as  a
\nwitness\t to prove one of the charges against  the  appellant
\ndespite\t the  objections made by the appellant\tagainst\t the
\ninclusion  of  such  member in\tthe  Committee,\t the  entire
\nenquiry proceeding was vitiated.  The learned Judge  further
\nheld that the contention of the respondents that the bias of
\nShri  Maru  Ram, even if any, should be restricted  only  to
\ncharge No. 12 and as such the order of dismissal also on the
\nbasis of other charges should not be set aside, could not be
\naccepted.  The learned Judge was of the view that since Shri
\nMaru  Ram  conducted the enquiry with bias,  the  said\tbias
\ncontinued  and percolated to the entire proceeding and\tsuch
\nbias  therefore\t should not be restricted to charge  No.  12
\nonly.  The learned Judge also rejected-the contention of the
\nrespondents that as the appellant did not raise the plea  of
\nbias  on  the  part  of Shri  Maru  Ram\t before\t the  Deputy
\nCommissioner or the Commissioner specifically, the appellant
\nshould\tnot be allowed to raise the question of\t bias.\t The
\nlearned\t Judge held inter alia that it was evident from\t the
\nenquiry\t proceeding and the report of the enquiry  committee
\nthat  the  said\t Shri Maru Ram was  member  of\tthe  enquiry
\ncommittee  and had also deposed as a witness in the  enquiry
\nproceeding.  Since such report was required to be considered
\nby the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of affirming, the
\nproposed  order\t of  dismissal, the said fact  of  bias\t and
\nprejudice  was required to be considered and  the  appellant
\nwas not debarred from raising such vital plea of bias in the
\nWrit proceeding.  The learned Judge was of the view that  in
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the
\nManaging  Committee  and  the orders passed  by\t the  Deputy
\nCommissioner and the Commissioner on the basis of an illegal
\nand  biased  enquiry  against the petitioner  could  not  he
\nsustained.   The learned Judge therefore, allowed  the\tsaid
\npetition, set aside the proposed order of dismissal and\t the
\norder of confirmation passed by the Deputy Commissioner\t and
\nthe appellate order passed by the Commissioner and  directed
\nthe Deputy Commissioner to decide the reference made by\t the
\nManaging Committee for confirmation of the proposed order of
\ndismissal passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the light  of
\nthe observations made in the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
The Managing Committee being aggrieved by the said  decision
\nof  the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana\tHigh
\nCourt preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of  punjab
\nand  Haryana High Court being L.P.A. No. 1427 of 1992.\t The
\nDivision  Bench, however, held that it had not been  brought
\non  record as to what objection was taken and in  what\tform
\nagainst\t Shri  Maru  Ram who was a  member  of\tthe  enquiry
\ncommittee.   The  Division Bench, however, noted  the  order
\npassed by the Managing Committee rejecting the objection  of
\ninclusion  of  Shri Maru Ram in the  Managing  Committee  by
\nquoting\t the  order passed by the  enquiry  committee.\t The
\nDivision  Bench was of the view that the plea of bias  could
\nbe  waived  and\t if  the appellant  felt  that\tthe  enquiry
\nproceeding was vitiated by the
\n871<\/span>
\nreason\tof  bias because of inclusion of Shri Maru  Ram,  he
\ncould  have raised specific plea of bias before\t the  Deputy
\nCommissioner and Commissioner.\tSince such specific plea was
\nnot raised before-the Deputy Commissioner and  Commissioner,
\nthe appellant should not be allowed to raise such contention
\nin the Writ Petition.  The Division Bench also held that the
\nplea  of  bias\tof Shri Maru Ram as indicated  in  the\tWrit
\nPetition  was also very vague.\tThe Division  Bench  further
\nheld  that the Deputy Commissioner gave opportunity  to\t the
\nappellant to meet certain charges and he was not  influenced
\nby Charge No. 12 only in respect of which the said Shri Maru
\nRam appeared as witness.  As it appeared from the order that
\nthe Deputy Commissioner was impressed with some other  char-
\nges for which the order of dismissal could be confirmed,  no
\ninterference was called for against the impugned order.\t The
\nDivision Bench, therefore, allowed the appeal and  dismissed
\nthe Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
As  aforesaid,\tthe  appeal is\tdirected  against  the\tsaid
\nimpugned  judgment of ,he Division Bench in L.P.A. No.\t1427
\nof  1982  dismissing  the Writ Petition.  In  terms  of\t the
\nnotice\tissued\ton the special leave application  the  short
\nquestion as to why the enquiry and the order passed  therein
\nshould\tnot be set aside and a fresh enquiry should  not  be
\nordered\t on the ground that one of the participants  of\t the
\nCommittee  was biased, is required to be considered in\tthis
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
In   Administrative  Law,  Rules  of  natural  justice\t are
\nfoundational  and fundamental concepts and law is  now\twell
\nsettled\t that the principles of natural justice are part  of
\nthe legal and judicial procedures.  On the question  whether
\nthe principles ofnatural justice are also applicable to\t the
\nadministrative\tbodies, formerly, the law courts in  En-land
\nand  India  had\t taken a different view.   It  was  held  in
\nFranklin  v. Minister of Town and Country Planning [1947]  2
\nAll ER 289 that the duty imposed on the minister was  merely
\nadn-Anistrative and not being judical or quasijudicial,\t the
\nprinciple  of natural justice as applicable to the  judicial
\nor  quasi  judicial authorities was not applicable  and\t the
\nonly  question\twhich  was required  to\t be  considered\t was
\nwhether the Minister had complied with the direction or not.
\nSuch view was also taken by the Indian courts and  reference
\nmay  be made to the decision of this Court in  Kishan  Chand
\nArora v. Commissioner of<\/a> police, Calcutta [1961] 3 SCR\t135.
\nIt  was held that the compulsion of hearing  before  passing
\nthe  order implied in the maxim audi alteram pertem  applied
\nonly to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings.Later on, the
\nlaw courts in England and also in India including this Court
\nhave specifically held that the principle of natural justice
\nis applicable also in administrative proceedings.  In  Breen
\nv. Amal ganaled Engineering Union [1971] 1 All ER 1148\tLord
\nDenning\t emphasised that Statutory body is required  to\t act
\nfairly\tin  function whether administrative or\tjudicial  or
\nquasi judical Lord
\n872<\/span>
\nmorris\tobserved (as noted by this Court in Maneka  Gandhi’s
\ndecision  [1978] 2 SCR 625 that.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  can\tthink, take pride in what  has\tbeen
\n\t      done in recent periods and particularly in the
\n\t      field of administrative law by invoking and by
\n\t      applying\tthese  principles which\t we  broadly
\n\t      classify\tunder  the  designation\t of  natural
\n\t      justice.\t Many testing problems as  to  their
\n\t      application  yet remain to be solved.   But  I
\n\t      affirm that the area of administrative  action
\n\t      is but one area in which the principles are to
\n\t      be deployed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  may be indicated herein that the  aforesaid\t observation
\nwas  quoted with approval by this Court in the\tdecision  in
\nManeka Gandhi v. Union of India<\/a> [1978] 2 SCR 62 1. In  State
\nof  Orissa v. BinapaniDei [1967] 2 SCR 625, this Court\talso
\naccepted the application of the principle of natural justice
\nin  the order which is administrative in character.  It\t was
\nobserved by Shah,J. :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is true that the order is  administrative
\n\t      in character, but even an administrative order
\n\t      which  involves civil consequences… must  be
\n\t      made  consistently with the rules\t of  natural
\n\t      justice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Similar\t view  was also taken in A.K. Kraipak  v.  Union  of
\nIndia & Ors.<\/a> [1970] 1 SCR 457 and the observation of Justice
\nHedge may be referred to
\n\t      “Till very recently it was the opinion of\t the
\n\t      courts that unless the authority concerned was
\n\t      required by the law under which it  functioned
\n\t      to  act judicially. there was no room for\t the
\n\t      application  ofthe rules of  natural  justice.
\n\t      The   validity  of  that\tlimitation  is\t now
\n\t      questioned.   If\tthe purpose ofthe  rules  of
\n\t      natural  justice is to prevent miscarriage  of
\n\t      justice,\tone  fails to see  why\tthose  rules
\n\t      should be made inapplicable to  administrative
\n\t      enquiries.”\n<\/p>\n
There are number of decisions where application of principle
\nof  natural  justice in the decision making process  of\t the
\nadministrative body having civil consequence has been upheld
\nby  this Court but it is not necessary to refer to all\tsuch
\ndecisions.   Prof Wade in his Administrative Law, (1988)  at
\npage  503,  has very aptly observed that the  principles  of
\nnatural justice are applicable to almost the whole range  of
\nadministrative powers.\n<\/p>\n
Since the rules of natural justice were not emodied rules it
\nis not possible and
\n873<\/span>
\npracticable  to\t precisely define the parameter\t of  natural
\njustice.  In Russel v. Duke of Norfold\t19491  1 All ER\t 109
\nTucker, L.J. observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “There  are, in my view no words which are  of
\n\t      universal application to every kind of inquiry
\n\t      and the every kind of domestic tribunal.\t The
\n\t      requirements of natural justice must depend on
\n\t      the  circumstances of the case, the nature  of
\n\t      the   inquiry,  the  rules  under\t which\t the
\n\t      tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is
\n\t      being dealt with, and so forth.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It has\t  been\tobserved by this Court in Union of India  v.
\nP.K. Roy.<\/a> [1968] 2 SCR 186 that
\n\t      “The extent and application of the doctrine of
\n\t      natural  justice cannot be  imprisoned  within
\n\t      the  strait-jacket  of a rigid  formula.\t The
\n\t      application  of the doctrine depends upon\t the
\n\t      nature  of the jurisdiction conferred  on\t the
\n\t      administrative  authority, upon the  character
\n\t      of  the  rights of the persons  affected,\t the
\n\t      scheme  and  policy of the statute  and  other
\n\t      relevant\t circumstances\tdisclosed   in\t the
\n\t      particular case.”\n<\/p>\n
Similar\t view  was  also expressed  in\tA.K  Kraidak’s\tcase
\n(ibid).\t This Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “What  particular\t rule  of  natural   justice
\n\t      should apply to a given case must depend to  a
\n\t      great extent on the facts and circumstances of
\n\t      that  case,  the framework of  the  law  under
\n\t      which the enquiry is held and the constitution
\n\t      of  the Tribunal or body of persons  appointed
\n\t      for  that\t purpose.  Whenever a  complaint  is
\n\t      made  before  a court that some  principle  of
\n\t      natural  justice\thad  been  contravened,\t the
\n\t      court has to decide whether the observance  of
\n\t      that rule was necessary for a just decision on
\n\t      the facts of that case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Prof.\tWade  in  his  Administrative  Law  has\t  succinctly
\nsummarised the principle of natural justice to the following
\neffect:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It is not possible to lay down rigid rules as
\n\t      to when the principles of natural justice\t are
\n\t      to  apply: not as to their scope\tand  extent.
\n\t      Everything depends on the subject matter,\t the
\n\t      application for principles of natural justice,
\n\t      resting as it does upon statutory
\n\t      874<\/span>
\n\t      implication, must always be in conformity with
\n\t      the  scheme of the Act and with  the  subject-
\n\t      matter of the case.  In the application of the
\n\t      concept  of  fair\t play  there  must  be\treal
\n\t      flexibility.   There must also have been\tsome
\n\t      real prejudice to the complainant: there is no
\n\t      such thing as a merely technical\tinfringement
\n\t      of  natural  justice.   The  requirements\t  of
\n\t      natural  justice depend on the facts  and\t the
\n\t      circumstances  of the case, the nature of\t the
\n\t      enquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is
\n\t      acting,  the subject-matter to be dealt  with,
\n\t      and so forth.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
One of the cardinal principles of natural justice is :\tNemo
\ndebetesse judex in propria causa (No man shall be a judge in
\nhis  own cause).  The deciding authority must  be  impartial
\nand  without  bias,  It\t has been  held\t by  this  Court  in
\nSecretary  to Government Transport Department  v.  Munuswamy<\/a>
\n[1988] Suppl SCC 651 that a predisposition to decide for  or
\nagainst\t one party without proper regard to the true  merits
\nof  the dispute is bias.  Personal bias is one of the  three
\nmajor limbs of bias namely pecuniary bias, personal bias and
\nofficial bias.\tA classic case of personal bias was revealed
\nin  the\t decision of this Court in state of  U.P.  v.  Mohd.
\nNooh  [1988]  SCR  595.\t In the said  case,  a\tdepartmental
\nenquiry was held against an employee.  One of the  witnesses
\nagainst\t the employee turned hostile.  The  officer  holding
\nthe enquiry then left the enquiry, gave evidence against the
\nemployee and there after resumed to complete the enquiry and
\npassed\tthe order of dismissal.This Court quashed the  order
\nof dismissal by holding inter alia that the rules of natural
\njustice were grievously violated.\n<\/p>\n
In the instant case, Charge No. 12 states that a  particular
\nsum on account of amalgamated fund for the month of December
\nwas given to the appellant by Shri Maru Ram who was  teacher
\nincharge of the amalgamated fund.  In the enquiry  committee
\ncomprising of the three members, the said Shri Maru Ram\t was
\ntaken  as  one\tof the members and  he\thimself\t deposed  to
\nestablish the said Charge No. 12 and thereafter again joined
\nthe  enquiry  committee and submitted a report\tholding\t the
\nappellant  guilty of some of the charges including the\tsaid
\nCharge No. 12.\tShri Maru Ram was interested in establishing
\nthe  said  charge.  From the charge itself, it\tis  apparent
\nthat   he  had\ta  predisposition  to  decide  against\t the
\nappellant.   It\t is  really unfortunate\t that  although\t the
\nappellant  raised an objection before the enquiry  committee
\nby  clearly  indicating\t that the said\tShri  Maru  Ram\t was
\ninimical  towards him and he should not be a member  in\t the
\nenquiry\t committee,  such objection was rejected on  a\tvery
\nflimsy ground, namely, that since the said Shri Maru Ram was
\none  of\t the members of the Managing Committee and  was\t the
\nrepresentative of the teachers in the Managing Committee  it
\nwas necessary to include him in the enquiry
\n875<\/span>
\ncommittee.  It is quite apparent that the enquiry  committee
\ncould  have  been  constituted with  other  members  of\t the
\nManaging Committee and the rules of the enquiry are not such
\nthat  Shri  Maru  Ram  being  teacher’s\t representative\t was
\nrequired  to  be included in the said enquiry  committee  so
\nthat the doctrine of necessity maybe attracted.\t If a person
\nhas a pecuniary interest, such interest, ever it very small,
\ndisqualifies  such  person.   For  appreciating\t a  case  of
\npersonal  bias\tor bias to the subject matter  the  test  is
\nwhether\t there was a real likelihood of a bias\teven  though
\nsuch  bias  has not in fact taken place.  De  Smith  in\t his
\nJudicial Review of Administrative Action, (1980) at pace 262
\nhas  observed  that real likelihood of bias means  at  least
\nsubstantial   possibility  of  bias.   In  R.v.\t  Sunderland
\nJustices  [1924]  1 KB 357 (373) it has been held  that\t the
\nCourt  will  have to judge the matter as  a  reasonable\t man
\nwould  judge  of  any  matter in  the  conduct\tof  his\t own
\nbusiness.  In R versus Sussex Justices [1924] 1 KB 256 (259)
\nit  has been indicated that answer to the  question  whether
\nthere  was a real likelihood of bias depends not  upon\twhat
\nactually was done but upon what might appear to be done.  In
\nHalsbury Laws of England, (4th Edn.) Vol.2, para 551, it has
\nbeen indicated that the test of bias is whether a reasonable
\nintelligent  man, fully apprised of all\t the  circumstances,
\nwould  feel  a\tserious\t apprehension  of  bias.   The\tsame
\nprinciple has also been accepted by this Court in Manak\t Lal
\nv. Dr. Prem Chand<\/a> [1957] SCR 575.  This Court has laid\tdown
\nthat  the test is not whether in fact, a bias  has  affected
\nthe  judgment;\tthe  test always is and must  be  whether  a
\nlitigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable
\nto a member of the tribunal might have operated against\t him
\nin the final decision of the tribunal.\tIt is in this  sense
\nthat it is often said that justice must not only be done but
\nmust also appear to be done.\n<\/p>\n
In  the facts of the case, there was not only  a  reasonable
\napprehension in the mind of the appellant about the bias  of
\none  of\t the members of the enquiry committee,\tnamely,\t the
\nsaid  Shri Maru Ram but such apprehension became  real\twhen
\nthe  said  Shri Maru Ram appeared as a witness\tagainst\t the
\nappellant to prove the said charge and thereafter  proceeded
\nwith  the  enquiry  proceeding as a member  of\tthe  enquiry
\ncommittee  to uphold the correctness of his deposition as  a
\nJudge.\t The learned Single Judge considering the  aforesaid
\nfacts  came  to the finding that the participation  of\tShri
\nMaru  Ram as a member of the enquiry committee has  vitiated
\nthe enquiry proceeding because of flagrant violation of\t the
\nprinciples of natural justice.\tUnfortunately, the  Division
\nBench  set aside such judgment of the learned  Single  Judge
\nand  dismissed\tthe  Writ Petition improperly,\tto  say\t the
\nleast, on a technical ground that plea of bias of Shri\tMaru
\nRam  and  his acting as a Judge of his own case by  being  a
\nmember\tof the enquiry committee was not specifically  taken
\nbefore the Deputy commissioner and also before the appellate
\nauthority, namely, the Commissioner by the appellant and  as
\nsuch  the  said plea should not be allowed to be  raised  in
\nwrit proceeding, more so, when the case of prejudice on
\n876<\/span>
\naccount of bias could be waived by the person suffering such
\nprejudice.   General]  v,  a  point  not  raised  before  be
\ntribunal or administrative authorities may not be allowed to
\nbe raised for the first time in the writ proceeding more  so
\nwhen  the  interference in the writ  jurisdiction  which  is
\nequitable  and\tdiscretionary is not of course\tor  must  as
\nindicated  by  this Court in A.M. Allison  versus  State  of
\nAssam, AIR 1957 SC 227 particularly when the plea sought  to
\nbe  raised for the first time in a Writ proceeding  requires
\ninvestigation  of  facts.   But\t if  the  plea\tthough\t not
\nspecifically raised before the subordinate tribunals or\t the
\nadministrative\tand quasi-judicial bodies, is raised  before
\nthe High Court in the writ proceeding for the first time and
\nthe  plea goes to the root of the question and is  based  on
\nadmitted  and uncontroverted facts and does not require\t any
\nfurther\t investigation\tinto a question of  fact,  the\tHigh
\nCourt is not only justified in entertaining the plea but  in
\nthe   anxiety\tto  do\tjustice\t which\tis   the   paramount
\nconsideration  of  the\tCourt, it  is  only  desirable\tthat
\nlitigant should not be shut out fromraising such plea  which
\ngoes  to the root of the lis involved.\tThe  aforesaid\tview
\nhas been taken by this Court in a number of decisions and  a
\nreference  may be made to the decisions in A.S.\t Arunachalam
\nPillai\tv. M\/s.\t Southern Roadways Ltd. and<\/a>  another  [1960]
\nAIR  SC\t 1191,\tThe Cantonment\tBoard,\tAmbala\tv.  Pyarelal<\/a>
\n[1963] 3 SCR 341.  In our view, the learned Single Judge has
\nvery rightly held that the Deputy Commissioner was under  an
\nobligation  to consider the correctness and propriety  ofthe
\ndecision  of the Managing Committee based on the  report  of
\nthe  enquiry  committee which since made available  to\thim,
\nshowed on the face of it that Shri Ramu Ram was included and
\nretained  in the enquiry committee despite objection of\t the
\nappellant  and\tthe  said Shri Maru  Ram  became  a  witness
\nagainst\t the appellant to prove one of the charges.   It  is
\nreally\tunfortunate  that the Division Bench set  aside\t the
\ndecision  of the learned Single Bench by taking recourse  to
\ntechnicalities that the plea of bias on account of inclusion
\nof  Shri  Maru Ram in the enquiry committee and\t his  giving
\nevidence   on  behalf  of  the\tdepartment  had\t  not\tbeen
\nspecifically  taken  by\t the  appellant\t before\t the  Deputy
\nCommissioner  and the Commissioner.  The Division Bench\t has
\nalso proceeded on the footing that as even apart from Charge
\nNo.  12,  the Deputy Commissioner has  also  considered\t the
\nother  charges on consideration of which along\twith  Charge
\nNo.  12,  the  proposed\t order\tofdismissal  was  made,\t  no
\nprejudice  has been caused to the appellant.  Such view,  to
\nsay  the  least,  cannot  be  accepted\tin  the\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances of the case.  The learned Single Judge, in our
\nview,  has rightly held that the bias of Shri Maru Ram,\t one
\nof  the\t members  of the  enquiry  commttee  had  percolated
\nthroughout  the\t enquiry proceeding  thereby  vitiating\t the
\nprinciples  of natural justice and the findings made by\t the
\nenquiry committee was the product of a biased and prejudiced
\nmind.\t The   illegality  committed   in   conducting\t the
\ndepartmental  proceedings  has left an\tindelible  stamp  of
\ninfirmity  on the decision of the Managing  Committee  since
\naffirmed  by the  Deputy Commissioner and the  Commissioner.
\nThe observatiory of S.R. Das, C.J.\n<\/p>\n
877<\/span><\/p>\n
in  Mohd  nooh’s  case (ibid) may be  referred\tto  in\tthis
\nconnection:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where  the error, irregularity or  illegality
\n\t      touching\tjurisdiction or procedure  committed
\n\t      by  an  inferior court or\t tribunal  of  first
\n\t      instance\tis so patent and  loudly  obstrusive
\n\t      that  it leaves on its decision  an  indelible
\n\t      stamp  of\t infirmity or vice which  cannot  be
\n\t      obliterated  or cured on appeal  or  revision.
\n\t      If  an  inferior court or\t tribunal  of  first
\n\t      instance\tacts wholly without jurisdiction  or
\n\t      patently\t in   excess  of   jurisdiction\t  or
\n\t      manifestly conducts the proceedings before  it
\n\t      in a manner which is contrary to the rules  of
\n\t      natural  justice\tand all\t accepted  rules  of
\n\t      procedure\t and  which  offends  the   superior
\n\t      court’s sense of fair play, the superior court
\n\t      may,  we\tthink, quite properly  exercise\t its
\n\t      power   to  issue\t the  prerogative  writ\t  of
\n\t      certiorari  to correct the error of the  court
\n\t      or  tribunal  of first instance,\teven  if  an
\n\t      appeal  to another inferior court or  tribunal
\n\t      was  available and recourse was not had to  it
\n\t      or  if  recourse was had to it,  it  confirmed
\n\t      what  ex-facie  was  a  nullity  for   reasons
\n\t      aforementioned.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We have, therefore, no hesitation in allowing the appeal  by
\nsetting aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of
\nPunjab and Haryana High Court and the order of dismissal  of
\nthe appellant passed by the Managing Committee of the School
\nconfirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and affirmed in  appeal
\nby  the\t Commissioner.\t This decision,\t however,  will\t not
\npreclude the Managing Committee. however, from proceeding  a
\nfresh  with the departmental proceedings from the  stage  of
\nissuance  of charge sheet.  It is, however, made clear\tthat
\nif  a  fresh enquiry proceeding is initiated  it  should  be
\nensured that the enquiry committee is not composed with\t any
\nof  the members of the previous enquiry committee  and\tsuch
\nproceeding  should  be\tcompleted within a  period  of\tfour
\nmonths from today.  In the special facts of the case and  in
\nview of the financial difficulties pleaded by the respondent
\nwe  do\tnot  think  that it will be  proper  to\t compel\t the
\nmanagement  to pay full back wages.  The school\t authorities
\nand  other  concerned authorities are directed\tto  pay\t one
\nfourth\tof  the\t salary to the appellant from  the  date  of
\ndismissal till today and thereafter go on paying the  salary
\nwith  such  increments which the appellant would  have\tbeen
\nentitled to in the absence of initiation of the departmental
\nproceeding.   Considering  the facts of the case,  we  allow
\nthis appeal with costs against the appearing respondents.\n<\/p>\n
U.R.\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed\n878<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram … on 14 May, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 AIR 2155, 1993 SCR (3) 863 Author: G Ray Bench: Ray, G.N. (J) PETITIONER: RATTAN LAL SHARMA Vs. RESPONDENT: MANAGING COMMITTEE, DR. HARI RAM (CO-EDUCATION)HIGHER SECON DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/05\/1993 BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-11T23:39:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram … on 14 May, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-11T23:39:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993\"},\"wordCount\":5150,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993\",\"name\":\"Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-11T23:39:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram … on 14 May, 1993\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-11T23:39:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram … on 14 May, 1993","datePublished":"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-11T23:39:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993"},"wordCount":5150,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993","name":"Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram ... on 14 May, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-05-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-11T23:39:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rattan-lal-sharma-vs-managing-committee-dr-hari-ram-on-14-may-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rattan Lal Sharma vs Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram … on 14 May, 1993"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}