JUDGMENT 1. - The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 8th October, 1974 (Annx. 9), whereby the petitioner's services were terminated and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22nd August, 1985 (Annx. 13) by which the order of removal was confirmed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the, petitioner was holding the post of Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force and was posted at Phulera junction in March 1972. At that time, a memorandum dated 31st March, 1972, a charge-sheet was served upon him and an enquiry was proposed to be held under Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (for short, the Rules). The charge against the petitioner was that he remained gross negligent in the discharge of his duty resulting in theft of 6 cases of rum valued at Rs. 500/- which took place while he was on duty in Dn. Yard PL from 20 Hrs. of 26th February, 1972 to 8 Hrs. of 27th February, 1972 from Wagon No. WR 22450 stabled on line No. 33 at PL Yard. which he failed to prevent or detect. He was also charged for utter neglectful working in that he checked only four incoming trains and no outgoing trains from 8 Hrs on February 27, 1972, and also failed to sign for four incoming trains checked by him in seal checking book. The petitioner denied the charges and, thereafter an enquiry was held. After the enquiry was over, a show cause notice dated 13th September, 1973, under Rule 44(10)(2) of the Rules was served upon him, stating that a penalty of reduction in pay to the lowest stage of his time scale for one year affecting his future increments is proposed. Along with the show cause notice, finding of the Assistant Security Officer and copy of enquiry report dated 16th August, 1972 were also sent to the petitioner. It may be stated here that the charge-sheet was served by J.J. Singh, who at the relevant time was Assistant Security Officer. He served the charge-sheet being the disciplinary authority, vide memorandum dated 17/19th April, 1974. The petitioner was served with a notice for enhancement of penalty of removal from service. This notice was issued by Shri J.J. Singh who at the relevant time was the Security Officer. He served the charge-sheet being the disciplinary authority, vide memorandum dated 17/19th April, 1974. The petitioner was served with a notice for enhancement of penalty of removal from service. This notice was issued by Shri J.J. Singh who at the relevant time was the Security Officer. It may be relevant to mention here that he is the same person who issued the charge-sheet. The petitioner gave a reply to the show cause notice. The Security Officer vide order dated 8th October, 1974, imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Chief Security Officer, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 31st March, 1975. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Chief Security Officer, the petitioner preferred a petition before the Chief Security Officer, which was rejected as communicated vide letter dated 16th August, 1975 (Annx.11). The petitioner then preferred a representation to the Inspector General of Railway Protection Force, which was also rejected by the Appellate order dated 7th July, 1976. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1773/1976. A learned Judge of this Court by order dated 6th May, 1985, quashed the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the case to the Deputy Chief Security Officer with the direction that he should decide the appeal in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. He again appeared before the Deputy Chief Security Officer. After hearing, the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 22nd August, 1985. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd August, 1985, and the order of punishment dated 8th October, 1974 (Annx. 9), whereby his services were terminated. 3. A notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and allowed. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his removal from service on various grounds. It is submitted by the petitioner that the various grounds raised by him in the appeal were not taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has also contended that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. 4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of his removal from service on various grounds. It is submitted by the petitioner that the various grounds raised by him in the appeal were not taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has also contended that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself. The order of removal from service has also been challenged on the ground that Shri J.J. Singh who enhanced the punishment was biased against the petitioner. It is also submitted by the petitioner that he challenged the order of removal that in the show cause notice for enhancement of penalty, no reasons were assigned for not agreeing with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and the order of removal was passed taking into consideration the depositions made by one of the witnesses Shri Amilal that the petitioner offered a sum of Rs. 500/- to suppress the facts. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is that he was not given an opportunity to rebut the statement of Amilal for the purpose of deciding the quantum of punishment. 5. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents as to why the writ petition be not admitted and disposed of. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondents have filed a reply. In the reply the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner was afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself; the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration all the submissions made by the petitioner and that the enhancement of penalty was made in accordance with Rule 60 of the said Rules. 6. We have heard Shri M. Mridul, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri G S. Bapna, learned Counsel for the respondents. Shri Mridul has assailed the order of removal of the petitioner from service on various grounds raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. The principal ground of attack made by Shri M. Mridul is that Shri J.J. Singh who issued the charge-sheet as Asstt. Security Officer was not competent to take proceedings for enhancement under Rule 60 of the said Rules even if he may be working as Security Officer after his promotion. Shri Bapna, learned Counsel for the respondents, has submitted that there is nothing wrong in the enquiry. Security Officer was not competent to take proceedings for enhancement under Rule 60 of the said Rules even if he may be working as Security Officer after his promotion. Shri Bapna, learned Counsel for the respondents, has submitted that there is nothing wrong in the enquiry. The petitioner was given proper opportunity and there is no infirmity in the order of removal passed by Shri J.J. Singh. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. After perusing the record, we do no find any infirmity in the domestic inquiry. In the enquiry, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself. We also do not find any infirmity in the appellate order. The Appellate Authority in the order dated 22nd August, 1985 has taken into consideration all the points raised by the petitioner while finding that the petitioner was given an opportunity to inspect the record before initiating the enquiry and that the charges against the petitioner were duly proved. Thus, the only point that remains to be decided by us is the validity of the order enhancing the penalty passed by Shri J.J. Singh. It is an admitted case of the parties that Shri J.J. Singh was Assistant Security Officer, who issued the charge-sheet dated 31st March, 1972, Shri J.J. Singh was promoted as Security Officer. He, later on issued the notice of the proposed enhancement of penalty vide order dated 17th April, 1974 and Shri J.J. Singh passed the order of removal from service, by the order Annx. 9 dated 8th October 1974, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated. In the order, there is a reference of deposition of Shri R.K. Amilal regarding offering of Rs. 500/- by the petitioner to Shri R.K. Amilal. In the note of finding which is a part of Annx. 7, notice of proposed enhancement of penalty, the following facts have been mentioned:I have gone through the DRA Case file of R.K. Nanagram of JP Staff No. JE/741 and find that in view of the findings of the enquiry officer, he has been held fully responsible for the charge levelled against him which is of a serious nature. 7, notice of proposed enhancement of penalty, the following facts have been mentioned:I have gone through the DRA Case file of R.K. Nanagram of JP Staff No. JE/741 and find that in view of the findings of the enquiry officer, he has been held fully responsible for the charge levelled against him which is of a serious nature. I, therefore, feel that the punishment awarded to him by the ASO, JP is not commensurate with the charge and, therefore, I have decided that the punishment awarded to him by the ASO, JP his No. JPE 40/44/2/72 dated 17-11-1973 for reduction in the pay to the lowest stage of time scale of RK to Rs. 70/-p.m. for one year affecting his future increment should be enhanced to that of removal from service. 8. In the memorandum Annx. 7 issued under Rule 60 of the Rules it is only mentioned that enhancement of penalty of removal is warranted and the reasons for arriving at this decision are given in Annx. 8. It is, therefore, clear that no grounds were given except that the punishment awarded was not commensurate with the charge; but from Annx. 9, dated 8th October; 1974, by which the punishment of removal from service was inflicted it appears that the main ground on which the punishment was awarded, was the deposition of Amilal. It may be true that Amilal had made the statement as disclosed above and equally true is that the petitioner was never told that this statement is going to be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding either the conduct of the petitioner or the quantum of punishment. At no stage, the petitioner was told by the Security Officer to use this piece of circumstance for the purpose of deciding the quantum of punishment. The contention of the petitioner is true that if the petitioner had been told about it he would have explained it as to why the statement of Amilal does not deserve any weight. In our opinion, this circumstance by itself is sufficient to quash the. order dated 8th October, 1972, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated, as we are of the opinion that when power is given to the authority to enhance the punishment then he should give proper grounds on which the punishment is made by the disciplinary authority is going to be interfered with. order dated 8th October, 1972, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated, as we are of the opinion that when power is given to the authority to enhance the punishment then he should give proper grounds on which the punishment is made by the disciplinary authority is going to be interfered with. But, in the instant case, no reasons were assigned except that the proposed penalty was not commensurate with the charge levelled against the petitioner, and that the charge was of a serious nature. But. as a matter of fact, Annx. 9 discloses the mind of the Security Officer as to why the punishment was enhanced and, it appears that the punishment was enhanced not because of gravity of the offence but because of the fact that the Security Officer Shri J.J. Singh while exercising power under Rule 60 was influenced by Amilal's statement, where in he deposed that the petitioner offered a sum of Rs. 500/- to him to suppress the case and this conduct of the petitioner was deprecated by him for retaining the services of the petitioner. There is another aspect of the matter which is equally important. Shri J.J. Singh was the person who served the charge-sheet. Shri J.J. Singh was the disciplinary authority, though as Assistant Security Officer and after his promotion as Security Officer, he issued notice under Rule 60 for the proposed enhancement of sentence and the sentence was of removal from service. More or less, it is a case where a person who is the Prosecutor became a judge also. Even otherwise, the action taken by Shri J.J. Singh was against the principles of natural justice. The principle of natural justice is based on twin requirements (i) no man should be a judge in his own cause; and ( i) justice must not only be done but seen to be done. In order to see whether a person acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity is disqualified on the ground of bias, the real likelihood of bias must be shown and the test lies on the reasonable apprehension of a reasonable man. In considering where there is likelihood of bias, the court is not required to look at the mind of the Judge or the quasi-judicial authority. But, it looks at the impression which would be given to the other people. In considering where there is likelihood of bias, the court is not required to look at the mind of the Judge or the quasi-judicial authority. But, it looks at the impression which would be given to the other people. It is fundamental principle that justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking, 'the judge was biased". 9. In this view of the matter, judged from any angle, the notice of proposed enhancement of penalty Annx. 7, dated 17th April, 1974 and the order dated 8th October, 1974, Annx. 9, by which the punishment of removal from service was made enhancing the penalty imposed by order dated 17-20th November, 1973, by the Assistant Security Officer Western Railway, Jaipur, cannot be sustained. Consequently, the order dated 22nd August, 1985 (Annx. 13) passed in appeal is also not sustainable. 10. In the premises aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order of removal dated 8th October, 1974, (Annx. 9) and also the order passed in appeal dated 22nd August, 1985 (Annx. 13) are quashed. How ever, the order of punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority dated 17-20th November, 1983, by which the pay of the petitioner was reduced to the maximum ('minimum') of his time-scale i.e. Rs. 70/- per month for one year affecting his future increment is maintained. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to grant the benefit of arrears of pay, but the petitioner's continuity in service shall be maintained. The respondents shall reinstate the petitioner within a period of one month of the passing of this order. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition partly allowed. *******