New Delhi, April 13: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition of a lower court judge alleging bias on the part of an inquiry authority probing corruption charges against him, saying the plea was “premature” and an attempt to “delay” the proceedings.
Jai Prakash Narain, a 1992 batch judicial officer, had approached the High Court alleging a fresh inquiry was conducted in a hasty manner against the principles of natural justice and statutory rules after the previous inquiring authority, headed by Justice Vikramjit Sen, recused itself.
However, a bench of Justices Badar Durrez Ahmed and Veena Birbal did not allow the contention and dismissed the petition saying it was premature.
“We are of the view that prima facie allegations of bias/prejudice being caused to petitioner or that the principles of natural justice have not been followed, are not made out,” the bench said.
The Court also noted that it was not appropriate for it to examine the merits of the inquiry at this stage when the report was yet to be submitted.
“Merits/demerits of the inquiry cannot be gone into at this stage. The inquiry report is yet to be submitted. It is for the Disciplinary Authority, which is the Full Court in this case, to accept the findings given in the inquiry report or not,” the Court said.
Narain was served with a memorandum of charges alleging acquisition of disproportionate assets, passing orders on extraneous consideration and violating service rules against him on December 13, 2006.
After recusal by Justice Sen, Narain had made another recusal application against another judge appointed as an Inquiring Authority, which was rejected by it. The judicial officer contended that he was denied the right to cross-examination the material witness and his plea for impeaching the credit of the witness was also wrongly turned down by the inquiry authority.
However, the disciplinary authority denied the allegations of prejudices and bias claiming it was an attempt to derail the just inquiry proceedings.
“It is only in those rare cases where the impugned proceedings are patently incompetent or without jurisdiction and where the court is convinced that continuance of such proceedings would amount to an illegality or an abuse of the process of law by itself that the court may show indulgence in exercise of its writ jurisdiction at interlocutory stage of departmental proceedings,” the bench noted.
–PTI