A.N Chaudhary Vs. Braithwaile and Co. Ltd. (2005) 6 SCC 231
Facts of the Case:
The appellant, Amar Nath was the employee of Braithwaite & Co, a Government of India
undertaking. He was dismissed from service, through an order of dismissal passed by the
Chairman-cum-Managing Director (MD) of the Company, who was the Disciplinary
Authority. Under the regulations of Company, an appeal against an order of Disciplinary
Authority, lies with the Board of Directors (BOD) of company. Amar Nath Chowdhury
preferred an appeal before Board. The MD participated in deliberation of Board and appeal
was dismissed by non-speaking order.
Amar Nath (Appellant) filed a writ petition, before Calcutta High Court, under Article 226 of
Constitution of India. The High Court set aside the order of removal passed against the
appellant. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the order and judgement of the
learned single judge was erroneous. The order passed by the single judge was set aside and
writ petition was dismissed.
Legal Issues:
1) Whether the proceedings of the Board was vitiated on account of participation of
Disciplinary Authority while deciding the appeal preferred by the appellant?
2) Whether an authority can sit in appeal against its own order passed in capacity of
Disciplinary Authority?
Contentions by Appellant (Amar Nath Chowdhury)
1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Braithwaite and Company, was disqualified to
have presided over and participated in the deliberation of the meeting of Board, which heard
and dismissed appeal.
2. The order of Appellant authority was vitiated on account of legal bias.
3. When an authority has earlier decided and prejudged the matter, he is disqualified to sit in
appeal against his own decision, as such as appeal would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar
and filling of an appeal would be an exercise in futility.
Contentions by Respondent (Braithwaite & Co)
1. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Braithwaite and Company, had presided over
and participated due to ‘Doctrine of necessity’.
2. The Rule against Biasness is not available, when under the regulations framed by the
Company, the Disciplinary Authority, who happens to be Chairman-cum-Managing Director
was required to preside over the meeting of Board.
