N. B. Asthana, J. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dilip Gupta, who appeared for the respondents. Learned counsel have agreed that this petition may be decided at the admission stage with out calling for counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. WE, accordingly, proceed in the matter to decide the same finally at the admission stage. '
(2.) THE facts in so far as they are relevant for the purposes of decoding this writ petition are not in dispute. THE petitioner was appointed as Reade in the department of Psychology in Aligarh Muslim University (for short th University) in January, 1983. In connection with some complaints made by Miss Sunita Tandon and Miss Sunil Chauhan regarding their admission to Ph. D. course in Psychology a charge-sheet dated 17/18th September, 1986 was served upon the petitioner. He filed reply. Shri M K. Vasudevan was appointed Enquiry Officer vide order dated 5-5-87 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University. THE Enquiry Officer submitted his report upon which the Executive Council issued a show cause notice dated 5-4-89 to the petitioner. THE Executive Council vide its resolution dated 16/17-5-89 communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar of the University on 20-5 89 dismissed the petitioner from service. THE petitioner filed an appeal on 9-8-89 to the Visitor of the University. THE appellate authority without deciding the appeal itself sent it to the Executive Council of the University with the direction to decide that appeal. THE Executive Council vide resolution dated 2-11-92 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has come to this Court wish the prayer that orders dated 20-5-89 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), order dated 6-3-92 fannexure-13 to the writ petition) and the order dated 2-11-92 (annexure-14 to the writ petition) be quashed and the respondents be directed by a whit of mandamus to treat the petitioner in continuous service with all consequential benefits. It was urged that the decision forum of appeal and the authority who had passed the order of dismissal are the same. The appeal is from Caeser to Caeser, which is against all cannons of natural justice and fair play. The Executive Council had earlier dismissed the petitioner from service and its decision to reject to the appeal was in law biased. The Executive Council was not competent to decide the appeal against its own order. The argument has substance Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed from service w e f. 15-7-86 by the Executive Council, The Executive Council is the punishing authority in the present case. Wader sub-section 6 of section 13 of Aligarh Muslim University Act "the Visitor may by order in writing annul any proceeding of the University which is not in conformity with this Act, the Statutes or the Ordinances." Thus the Visitor has supervisory as well as the appellate authority under the Act and the correctness of the decision of Executive Council can only be tested by the Visitor of the University. In the present case the Executive Council had dismissed the petitioner's appeal. It is a fundamental rule that a person cannot be judged in a cause where he Is interested. In the instant case the Executive Council of the University must be Interested that the order passed by it dismissing the petitioner from service is maintained. The Executive Council had expressed its mind while dismissing the petitioner from service. In the circumstances, if was not expected that the petitioner would get a fair deal from the Executive Council, which had dismissed him earlier. The Executive Council while disposing of appeal was likely to be diased because, the appeal was filed against its own order. It is immaterial whether the Executive Council was, in fact, biased or not while disposing of the appeal, The Executive Council had already pre-judged the merits of the case while dismissing the petitioner from service and as such it was disqualified from hearing and deciding the appeal. It bad pre-conceived opinion on the merits of the case. The decision of appeal by the Executive Council was vitiated on account of its prior involvement in the decision of the enquiry, which resulted in the dismissal of the petitioner. It is one of the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence that no man can be a Judge in his own cause and if there is a reasanable likeli-hood 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 any real likelihood of bits. 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 likelihood of bias affecting the decision. The basic principle underlining this rule is that justice must not only be done but also must appear to be done. It is also important to note that this rule is not confined to the oases where judicial power strioto sensu is exercised. It is appropriately extended to all cases where an independent mind has to be applied to arrive at a fair and jost decision. The standard applied by the authorities exercising the judicial powers are being increasingly applied to administrative bodies, so that the instrumentality of the State should discharge their functions in a fair and just manner. (Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR. 1987 SC 454).
(3.) IT is a common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and an appeal decided by the same authority may not really serve any fruitful purpose. The authority who embarks upon the post decisional hearing would naturally proceed with a closed mind and there Is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the appeal at such a post decisional opportunity. This is an instance of an appeal from one's own order to oneself. The Executive Council had already prejudged the facts while dismissing the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report. IT was disqualified from hearing the appeal against its own order. It was, however, urged on behalf of the respondents that statutes of the university empower the Visitor to refer the appeal to the Executive Council of the university for disposal. This has no doubt been provided in the statute but in the instant case this would not help the respondents at all. Had there been no other authority capable of hearing the appeal then it could have been argued that by way of necessity there is no option for the Executive Council but to hear the appeal. This is not the case here. The Visitor of the university could have very well decided the appeal.;