Arvind, a government employee, is facing disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct. An inquiry officer, a close relative of the complainant, is appointed by the department to conduct the inquiry. Aggrieved by the m

Natural justice is a concept of Common Law and represents procedural principles developed by judges. Though it enjoys no express constitutional status, it is one of the most important concepts that ensure that people retain their faith in the system of adjudication. According to rule against bias, no person should be made a judge in his own cause. Bias means an operative prejudice whether conscious or unconscious in relation to a party or issue. It is a presumption that a person cannot take an objective decision in a case in which he has an interest. The rule against bias has two main aspects- one, that the judge must not have any direct personal stake in the matter at hand and two, there must not be any real likelihood of bias. There are number of situations which may create a personal bias in the Judge's mind against one party in dispute before him. He may be a friend of the party, or related to him through family, professional or business ties. The judge might also be hostile to one of the parties to a case. All these situations create bias either in favour of or against the party and will operate as a disqualification for a person to act as a Judge. In the given situation, the inquiry officer happens to be a close relative of the complainant and although the Inquiry officer might have conducted fair inquiry, but according to principle "justice must not only be done but also seen to be done", principle of natural justice can be said to have been violated. Therefore, the High Court may set aside the proceedings and order a fresh inquiry conducted by an impartial officer.