When Justice Judges Itself, It Collapses: A Lesson from ‘Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa’

When Justice Judges Itself, It Collapses: A Lesson from ‘Nemo Debet Esse Judex in Propria Causa’

-Bruhaspati Samal-

There are moments in public life when the silent suffering of an individual transforms into a powerful indictment of the system itself. This is not merely the story of a government employee caught in disciplinary proceedings—it is the story of how authority, when exercised without restraint, can push a human being and his family into years of uncertainty, humiliation, and hardship. For more than eight long years since 2018, a career was derailed, dignity was questioned, and a family was forced to live under the shadow of allegations and instability. This is not just injustice—it is prolonged institutional suffering.

At the heart of this struggle lies one of the most fundamental principles of natural justice—nemo debet esse judex in propria causa—no one should be a judge in their own cause. This principle is not merely a legal abstraction; it is the moral boundary that separates fairness from arbitrariness. Once this boundary is crossed, the very idea of justice begins to erode. Equally compelling is the doctrine of sublato fundamento cadit opus—if the foundation is removed, the entire structure collapses. When the beginning of a process is tainted with bias or illegality, every subsequent action, no matter how procedurally correct it may appear, becomes unsustainable. These principles formed the backbone of a historic judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 260/00162 of 2022, a case that stands today as a stark reminder of the consequences of violating natural justice.

The case originated from allegations of misconduct within a postal division. A supervisory officer alleged misbehavior, manhandling, and assault, and accordingly initiated criminal proceedings by lodging a complaint with the police. This set the criminal law in motion. However, what followed thereafter raises serious concerns about fairness and administrative propriety.

The disciplinary authority of the division, who was actively involved in reporting and pursuing the allegations, proceeded to initiate departmental proceedings against the employee. The employee was placed under suspension. A charge sheet was issued on 01.03.2018. Despite the employee submitting his defense, the authority examined the same and decided to proceed with a formal inquiry by appointing an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The disciplinary machinery moved forward with full force. Although the final order of dismissal, dated 28.10.2019, was passed later by another officer due to a change in incumbency, the foundation of the entire proceeding—initiation, framing of charges, and decision to conduct the inquiry—remained rooted in the actions of an authority who was not a neutral adjudicator but an interested party in the allegations. This overlap between the roles of complainant and disciplinary authority was not a minor procedural irregularity. It was a fundamental violation of natural justice. It created a reasonable apprehension of bias, which is sufficient in law to vitiate the entire proceeding.

The Tribunal, while examining the matter, relied upon a series of landmark judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In Mohd. Yunus Khan vs State of Uttar Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 8339 of 2010), the Apex Court had categorically held that when an authority acts both as a witness and an adjudicator, the entire disciplinary proceeding stands vitiated. Similarly, in Ashok Kumar Yadav vs State of Haryana (1985) and A.U. Kureshi vs High Court of Gujarat (2009), it was held that even a reasonable likelihood of bias is sufficient to invalidate a decision. The principle was further reinforced in S. Parthasarthy vs State of Andhra Pradesh (1973), where the Court emphasized that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The Tribunal also drew support from its own earlier decision in O.A. No. 523/2023, where disciplinary proceedings were quashed on similar grounds of violation of natural justice.

Applying these well-established principles, the Tribunal came to a clear and unequivocal conclusion: when an authority, who has a personal stake or prior involvement in the allegations, initiates disciplinary proceedings, the process is inherently biased and legally unsustainable. It is not necessary to establish actual bias; the mere existence of circumstances that give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias is enough to invalidate the entire proceeding. Once this foundational defect was identified, the legal consequence was inevitable. Invoking the doctrine of sublato fundamento cadit opus, the Tribunal held that if the initial action itself is illegal, all subsequent actions must fall. Accordingly, the charge sheet dated 01.03.2018 was quashed. The inquiry report, the dismissal order dated 28.10.2019, and the appellate and revisional orders dated 30.04.2021 and 20.12.2021 were all set aside. The employee was deemed to have continued in service with all consequential benefits, except back wages.

While this decision restored the legal position of the employee, it also raises a profound and uncomfortable question: can justice delivered after eight long years truly compensate for what was lost? The answer is complex, and perhaps unsettling. Dismissal from service is not merely a professional setback. It is a social and economic catastrophe. It strips an individual of livelihood, dignity, and identity. For eight years, the employee lived under the burden of allegations, facing social stigma and financial hardship. His family, too, bore the consequences—uncertainty, deprivation, and emotional distress became a part of daily life. These are losses that no judicial order can fully repair. This case, therefore, is not just about legal principles. It is about the human cost of administrative actions taken without due regard to fairness and objectivity.

It also compels us to examine a deeper and more troubling issue: whether disciplinary mechanisms are sometimes used not as instruments of justice, but as tools of control. When employees, especially those associated with collective representation or union activities, raise their voices or challenge authority, do they receive a fair hearing, or do they face disproportionate retaliation? When the system begins to respond to dissent with punitive action, when procedural safeguards are ignored, and when authority is exercised with a sense of vindictiveness, it begins to resemble what can only be described as trade union victimization. This is not merely an allegation—it is a pattern that demands serious introspection.

The Tribunal’s judgment, therefore, carries a message far beyond the confines of a single case. It is a reminder to the entire administrative machinery that power must be exercised with responsibility, restraint, and fairness. Disciplinary proceedings are not weapons to silence dissent; they are mechanisms to ensure accountability, and they must be conducted with utmost impartiality. No authority can be allowed to act as complainant, prosecutor, and judge at the same time. Such concentration of power is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of natural justice. It undermines trust, erodes credibility, and ultimately weakens the institution itself.

The lesson from this case is clear. Administrative decisions must be guided not by personal emotions or institutional ego, but by objective reasoning and adherence to established principles of law. Every authority must remember that behind every file is a human life, a family, and a future. The consequences of their decisions extend far beyond the office—they shape lives. Eight years of suffering cannot be dismissed as a mere procedural lapse. It is a reflection of systemic failure.

This case must serve as a turning point. It must compel authorities to revisit their approach and ensure that such violations do not recur. Mechanisms must be strengthened to prevent bias, ensure transparency, and uphold the principles of natural justice at every stage of disciplinary proceedings. Let this be a warning, and a call for reform. Let no employee in the future be subjected to such prolonged hardship because of avoidable bias or misuse of authority. Let the system evolve into one where justice is not only delivered, but delivered in time, and delivered fairly. Because when justice begins to judge itself, it does not merely collapse—it destroys lives along with it.

(The author is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist, presently working as the General Secretary, Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers and President, Forum of Civil Pensioners' Association / National Coordination Committee of Pensioners' Association, Odisha State Committee)

*****