JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal under Section 19 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 in directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated April 1, 1986, by which the appellants (here in after to be referred to as 'the petitioner') writ petition was dismissed. 2. The petitioner case to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with the Governments that he was working so Fitter-II in P.H.E.D. Eorawar in 1986 Since November 15, 1978, he was chosen as Vice-President of Rastriya Nal Mazdoor Sangh, Merta City (Distric Nagaur). The Union presented a charter of demands on October 31, 1985 to the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas (respondent No. 2). The demands were not met and the members of the union along with the petitioner resored to strike on November 20, 1985. On assurance by the Executive Engineer, the strike was with-drawn, but nothing came out. The workers again resorted to strike on January 1, 1986. The Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas came to Merta City on January 1, 1986 to have negotiations with the Union. He was taken to a camp where he was beaten and manhandled. His clothes were torn. The Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas issued charge-sheet Annexure-5 on January 25, 1986 to the petitioner enlisting four charges of misconduct against him. The petitioner submitted his reply Ex. 6 to the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas on February 12, 1986. He denied the allegations made against him and refuted the charges. The Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas, by his order Ex. 8 dated February 14, 1986, imposed the penalty of dismissal on the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order Annexure-8 mainly on the ground that Mr. Om Prakash Vyas was incompetent to hold any inquiry against him as he was the person who was alleged to have been manhandled and beaten by him (petitioner). It was also alleged that no proper inquiry was conducted at all. No evidence was recorded. No opportunity to lead defence was afforded to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge summarily dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the charges against the petitioner were grave and he does not deserve any sympathy from this Court. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has come-up in special appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. No opportunity to lead defence was afforded to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge summarily dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the charges against the petitioner were grave and he does not deserve any sympathy from this Court. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has come-up in special appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. D.K. Parihar learned Counsel for the appellant and Dr. S.S. Bhandawat Additional Government Advocate, for the respondents. 4. At the fore-front of his arguments, it was argued by Mr. Parihar that in the cherge-sheet Ex. 5 and the statement of allegations annexed with it it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner had manhandled and beaten the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas and torn his clothes. The charge-sheet was issued by the same Superintending Engineer Mr Om Prakash Vyas. The petitioner, in his reply Ex. 6, categorically denied these charges. He submitted his reply Ex. 6 on February 12, 1986. Soon thereafter, without any lapse of time, the same Superintending Engineer Mr Om Prakash Vyas passed the impugned order Ex. 8 on February 14, 1986 imposition the penalty of dismissal from service on the petition. It was argued that the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas was the officer who was alleged to have been manhandled and beaten by the petitioner Mr. Om Prakash Vyas was, therefore, incompetent to hold the inquiry and punish the petitioner. It was argued that a party cannot be a judge of his own cause It was also argued that Ex. 8 does not show that any inquiry was conducted The Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas even did not take care to take the reply of the petitioner into consideration before imposing the penalty. Reliance in support of the contention was placed by Mr. Parihar on Meenglas Tea Estate v. The Workmen 1986 (7) Indian Factories and Labour Rennrfs 106 and Arun Chobe v. Union of India(AIR 1984 SC 1306 . 5. Dr. Bhandawat appearing for the respondents tried his best to support the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted that looking to the gravity of the charges, the petitioner was not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 6. There is no dispute that some of the charges and allegations against the petitioner were that he had called the Superintending Engineer Mr. We have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 6. There is no dispute that some of the charges and allegations against the petitioner were that he had called the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas from Nagaur to Merta City, took him in the camp of the striking workmen, manhandled and beat him there in the camp and torn his clothes. Out of the four charges, the three related to the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas. It was the Superintending Engineer Mr Om Prakash Vyas who issued the charge-sheet Ex. 5 along with the statement of allegations to the petitioner. It was again the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas, who passed the impugned order Ex. 8 on February 14 1986 awarding the penalty of dismissal from service to the petitioner. 7. It is, thus, manifest that the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas was the directly affected party. The acts of violence are alleged to have been committed with him by the petitioner. It was again the same Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas who issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner and imposed the penalty of dismissal on him. 8. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that no one shall be a judge in his own cause--NEMO DEBE ESSE JUDEX IZ PROPRIA CAUSA. It, therefore, follows that the two characters of a complainant and a judge cannot be combined in the same person. A man can be either a party to the dispute or he may be a judge to decide the dispute. He cannot be both. A person should not combine in himself the two capacities of a party and a judge. 9. As pointed out above, the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas was the party and also the Punishing Authority, who awarded the punishment to the petitioner. Mr. Om Prakash Vyas was, thus, the most ill suited person to conduct any inquiry and award the punishment to the petitioner. He played the two roles one of the complainant and the other of the judge. The two roles, i.e. of the complainant and of the judge (Punishing Authority) cannot obviously be played by one and the same person. The Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas was, therefore, incompetent to conduct the inquiry and award the punishment to the petitioner. 10. In Meenglas Tea Estate's case (supra), a similar situation arose. The two roles, i.e. of the complainant and of the judge (Punishing Authority) cannot obviously be played by one and the same person. The Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas was, therefore, incompetent to conduct the inquiry and award the punishment to the petitioner. 10. In Meenglas Tea Estate's case (supra), a similar situation arose. It was observed by their Lordships: "In the instant case neither was any witness examined nor was any statement made by any witness tendered in evidence. The enquiry, such as it was, was made by the enquiring officers, the Manager and the Assistant Manager who were not only in the position of Judges but also of prosecutors and witnesses. There was no opportunity to the persons charged to cross-examine them and indeed they drew upon their own knowledge of the incident and instead cross-examined the persons charged." (The inquiry was held to be invalid). 11. Recently, in Arun Chobe's case (supra), their Lordships observed: "The order of dismissal was illegal on the ground that the order was passed by the Superintendent after considering the explanation himself which Violated the principles of natural justice. The main thrust of the charges against the employee related to his conduct qua the Superintendent. Therefore, it was not open to the Superintendent to sit in judgment over the explanation offered by the employee and decide that the explanation was untrue. No person could be a judge in his own cause and no witness could certify that his own testimony was true." 12. The impugned order Ex. 8 dated February 14, 1986 passed by the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakash Vyas is, thus, wholly illegal and cannot be supported on any logic. He has combined the role of the complainant and the judge (Punishing Authority) in himself and that is sufficient to invalidate his order Ex. 8. 13. We may also point out that no proper inquiry was conducted in the case. The petitioner filed his reply Ex. 6 on February 12, 1986 and instantly thereafter the impugned order Ex. 8 came to be passed by the Superintending Engineer. The charges were denied by the petitioner. Evidence must have been, therefore, recorded to show that he had committed the acts of misconduct enlisted in the charge-sheet. We are unable to appreciate the undue haste exhibited by the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakas Vyas in issuing the impugned order Ex. 8 came to be passed by the Superintending Engineer. The charges were denied by the petitioner. Evidence must have been, therefore, recorded to show that he had committed the acts of misconduct enlisted in the charge-sheet. We are unable to appreciate the undue haste exhibited by the Superintending Engineer Mr. Om Prakas Vyas in issuing the impugned order Ex. 8 and imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. 14. In the result, the appeal is accepted and the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated April 1, 1986 is set-aside. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order Ex. 8 dated February 14, 1986 is quashed. The petitioner is reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. No order as to costs.Appeal Accepted. *******