JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff from the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, Howrah, affirming the decision of the learned munsif, 4th Court, Howrah in a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff has been wrongfully removed from his service and for reinstatement to his post of 'rakshak' in the Railway protection Force. 2. THE plaintiff's case is that on a charge of gross misconduct is that on 17. 11. 1965 during his duty at Beat No. 27 he was caught for pilferage of 13 lemons from a booked consignment at Platform No. 17 at parcel Goods-shed, Howrah Railway Station by Vigilance Inspector Sri I. S. Kapoor, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 5. 1. 1966 under Rule 45 of the R. P. F. Rules for minor penalty by the Assistant security Officer; that subsequently the said charge-sheet was cancelled and a fresh charge-sheet dated 13/14. 1. 1966 under Rule 44 of the R. P. F. Rules for major penalty was issued to the plaintiff; that in the departmental enquiry which followed he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses in support of the charge on vital points and the proceeding was conducted and the finding in the said enquiry has been made in violation of R. P. F. Rules and Regulations and the Principles of natural Justice, that his appeal against the order of removal passed by the Assistant security Officer on the basis of such finding was not properly considered by the appellate Authority ; and that the order of his removal from service with effect from 8, 9. 1966 is illegal and inoperative. The defendants have contested the suit by filing written statement in which it has been pleaded that there was no illegality or irregularity in the enquiry proceeding that the plaintiff was allowed adequate opportunity to defend himself and that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority acted according to the rules and regulations and did not violate the principles of natural justice as alleged by the plaintiff. 3. BOTH the courts below have held that the prescribed procedure for holding the enquiry has been followed and that the authorities have not violated the principles of natural justice in making the impugned order of removal of the plaintiff from service in the Railway Protection Force. 4. 3. BOTH the courts below have held that the prescribed procedure for holding the enquiry has been followed and that the authorities have not violated the principles of natural justice in making the impugned order of removal of the plaintiff from service in the Railway Protection Force. 4. I have heard the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant assailing the decision of the court of appeal below. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest the appeal. It appears that the plaintiff who was employed as 'rakshak' in the Railway Protection force has been removed from service after he was found guilty of a charge, of pilferage of 13 lemons from a booked consignment on 17. 11. 1965 at Parcel Goods shed, howrah Railway Station. He is said to have been caught by I. S. Kapoor, Vigilance inspector who submitted a report in which he stated, inter alia, as follows : "Actual facts of the case according to my information are that the Sainak (i. e. the plaintiff) was stealing lemons with the connivance of Subedar and the Parcel Clerk as the Sainak alone could not dare to do any mischief in the presence of his Officer and that too at a place other than his duty. As such on the facts of the case it transpires that Subedar, Parcel Clerk and the Sainak were all party in the ease". Inspite of such report the plaintiff alone was proceeded against. At first the Assistant Security Officer who was the disciplinary Authority issued a charge-sheet dated 5. 1. 7966 under Rule 45 of the R. P. F. Rules for minor penalty mentioned in Rule 41 (e)viz. Withholding of increment or promotion. Thereafter, the Chief Security Officer passed an (order on 8. 1. 66 in the following terms, viz. "aso will suspend and CS for removal" and it was communicated by a Memo dated 11. 1. 1966 to the ASO for information and necessary action. The Chief Security Officer is superior in the administrative set up of the R. P. F. To the Security Officer who is the Appellate Authority and the ASO is the disciplinary Authority of the 'rakshak'. After such order of the Chief Security Officer the earlier charge-sheet for minor penalty was cancelled and a fresh charge-sheet dated 13/14. 1. 1966 under Rule 44 for major penalty was issued to the plaintiff. After such order of the Chief Security Officer the earlier charge-sheet for minor penalty was cancelled and a fresh charge-sheet dated 13/14. 1. 1966 under Rule 44 for major penalty was issued to the plaintiff. The enquiry into the charge was held by an inspector of the R. P. F. whose Disciplinary authority was the Security Officer and appellate Authority was the Chief Security officer. It is, therefore, plain the Assistant security Officer had to change his decision of framing a charge for minor penalty against the plaintiff for the misconduct of pilferage off 13 lemons from a booked consignment and switch over to a charge for major penalty under the order of the chief Security Officer who was much superior to him and who had already influenced the decision and caused one sided inclination of mind of his subordinates, by directing the issue of a charge sheet for removal of the plaintiff. The enquiry was held by an 'inspector of the R. P. F. who is subordinate to the Assistant Security Officer. During the enquiry the report of R. N. Mukherjee, Assistant Sub Inspector of railway police who made an enquiry into the alleged incident soon after its occurrence on 17. 11, 1965 and submitted a report to the Officer in charge, Railway policy Station, Howrah was not made available and when he was asked in cross examination whether he could produce the said report the question was disallowed. The Enquiring Officer found the plaintiff guilty of the charge. The Assistant Security officer accepted his report and after giving the plaintiff a second show-cause notice passed the order of his removal form service which was confirmed in appeal by the security Officer. In my view, the aforesaid facts and circumstances show that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Enquiry Authority could exercise its judgment independently because of the order of the Chief Security officer to issue charge-sheet for removal of the plaintiff. The Disciplinary Authority had to act in pursuance of that order by canceling the charge-sheet for mirror penalty and issuing in its place a charge sheet for major penalty. This is a clear case of bias against the plaintiff which is a negation of natural justice. The principles of natural justice require that the Administrative Authority in making a decision affecting the service; of a subordinate officer must act without the appearance of bias. This is a clear case of bias against the plaintiff which is a negation of natural justice. The principles of natural justice require that the Administrative Authority in making a decision affecting the service; of a subordinate officer must act without the appearance of bias. The test is either there is a real likelihood of bias or whether a reasonable man would suspect it because justice must be rooted in confidence. The administrative Authority must act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides and always give a fair opportunity to those who are parties in the controversy for correcting or contradicting anything prejudicial to their view. The impugned proceeding does not pass this test. 5. IN view of the foregoing discussion, I find that in the present case the penalty is out of proportion to the charge and the finding of the Enquiring Authority is vitiated by real likelihood of bias and the order of removal passed against the plaintiff in acceptance of such finding is illegal and inoperative. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to reinstatement to his post of 'rakshak' in the Railway Protection Force. 6. THE plaintiff has already suffered immense hardship. Yet if the Disciplinary authority so chooses it may proceed against him under Rule 45 of the R. P. F. Rules on a charge for minor penalty which was originally issued but subsequently cancelled. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The decision of the court of appeal below is set aside. The suit is decreed on contest with costs throughout. It is declared that the order of removal the plaintiff from service in the Railway Protection Force is illegal and inoperative and that the plaintiff is entitled to is illegal and inoperative and that the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement to his post of Rakshak' in the said service. Appeal allowed with costs throughout.