SC sets aside dismissal of employee who alleged it to be biased action but withdrew his allegation; Court says withdrawal doesn’t erase apprehension & orders fresh probe

Despite the fact that an employee retracted earlier claims of biased behaviour from a member of the disciplinary authority, the Supreme Court determined that there was still a concern of bias. As a result, the court upheld the decision to annul the employee's dismissal order and mandated new disciplinary proceedings from the inquiry phase.

On April 6, 2026, the Supreme Court stressed that any member of the disciplinary authority who had faced prior allegations of bias and distrust from an employee must recuse himself from the proceedings. This is essential to ensure that justice is not only served but also perceived to be served. On this ground, the Supreme Court deemed the disciplinary proceedings and actions taken against an employee as invalid.

The Supreme Court also said that in cases where a disciplinary authority member is already subjected to allegations by the very employee they are taking disciplinary action against, then the employer must exercise caution to make sure that the process remains beyond reproach.


This judgement came against the background of a case filed by an employee against whom disciplinary action was initiated. The disciplinary authority conducted the enquiry and dismissed him from service though they could prove only one of the two charges levelled against him.

This appeal was filed in the Supreme Court in response to the Delhi High Court judgement which had set aside the dismissal order, holding that the decision suffered from procedural infirmities, particularly regarding the role of the Disciplinary Authority.

Also read: Employer needs to prove case on preponderance of probabilities in disciplinary proceedings: SC

The employer had challenged this case on the ground that the charges levelled against the employee was proved in departmental proceedings and hence his dismissal from service was a proportionate punishment.

The employer also pointed out in court that the employee had withdrawn the earlier allegations against the disciplinary authority and according to the doctrine of necessity, it is justified that the member against whom the allegation was made, continues in her role. This is because she was the only competent person at that time to make this decision of his dismissal from service.

While it is true that the employee wrote a letter making these allegations against the disciplinary authority lady member and had also filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court raising grievances against her conduct, he later withdrew it.

Also read: Employee fired for Rs 2 lakh embezzlement but wins case in Supreme Court as employer conducted enquiry without witnesses

The Supreme Court said that the most important aspect is that the person who was to take a final decision in the disciplinary proceeding, against whom already, he had expressed his lack of faith twice, first by sending a letter which may have been fabricated as far as the other signatory is concerned, but as far as he was concerned, he did write the letter and later on, also filed a writ petition before the High Court. It is not of much consequence, even if the writ petition was withdrawn because the levelling of serious charges against her by him had already taken place.

The court pointed out that the relevant consideration is not the eventual outcome of such allegations, but the reasonable perception of bias arising from prior adversarial conduct, as reported by LiveLaw.

The Supreme Court said that the decision-making process must be insulated from any perception of prejudice, and a person against whom the employee has expressed a lack of confidence should not be the final adjudicator. Failure to do so, the Supreme Court indicated, undermines the credibility of the entire proceeding.

The Supreme Court said that they are reminded of the maxim that "justice should not only be done but should also be seen to be done". In the present case, where already the lady (disciplinary committee member) was at the receiving end of allegations made by him (the employee), the authorities ought to have been mindful of not leaving anything for him to be aggrieved about.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court revived the disciplinary proceedings from the stage at which the inquiry report had been submitted and directed the present Disciplinary Authority, who is now a different person, to consider the report independently and to proceed according to law. The court directed that the exercise be completed expeditiously, preferably within three months.