JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by a workman challenging the proceedings leading to his dismissal from the service consequent upon a domestic enquiry conducted against him. The misconduct alleged against him is regarding the theft of arecanuts from the property of the management. 2. Alleging theft, a criminal complaint was lodged on behalf of the company by its manager. After the investigation, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner as C.C.No.365 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case as all the witnesses turned hostile. Before the conclusion of the criminal case, the domestic enquiry was concluded. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty. Consequent upon such finding, the management taking note of the grave nature of the misconduct proved against the petitioner, imposed the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner. 3. It is to be noted that in the criminal case, the enquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings Sri.P. Abraham Mathew was examined as PW1. He was the person who lodged the complaint before the police. 4. The petitioner-workman raised an industrial dispute. By a preliminary order, the Industrial Tribunal found that the enquiry was vitiated as the complainant himself was the enquiry officer. Ext.P1 is the preliminary order. This order was challenged by the management before this Court in O.P.No.19207 of 2002. This Court set aside the preliminary order and directed the Industrial Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh on merits. Aggrieved by the judgment in O.P.No.19207 of 2002, the workman preferred a writ appeal as W.A.No.1237 of 2008. Pending the writ appeal, the Labour Court passed the final award holding dismissal as a valid. Ext.P2 is the final award. Thereupon, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 31.7.2008. While pending this writ petition, the writ appeal filed by the petitioner was taken up. That writ appeal was allowed to be withdrawn with the permission to raise the competency of the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry, before the learned single Judge. That means, the issue relating to the competency of the enquiry officer would survive for consideration in this petition. 5. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the competency of the enquiry officer and also the merits of the findings by the Industrial Tribunal in regard to the enquiry report. That means, the issue relating to the competency of the enquiry officer would survive for consideration in this petition. 5. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the competency of the enquiry officer and also the merits of the findings by the Industrial Tribunal in regard to the enquiry report. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant before the police is the enquiry officer and therefore, there is a reasonable suspicion of bias on the mind of workman in the conduct of impartial enquiry in the matter. It is further submitted that there is no other evidence other than the testimony of two co-workers and the enquiry officer could not have assessed such testimony impartially without any preconceived notion as to the culpability of the petitioner-workman on the alleged misconduct. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments in P.D. Dinakaran (1) v. Judges Inquiry Committee and Others[ 2011 (8) SCC 380 ], Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi University and Others[ 2015(5) SCC 549 ] and Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India (Recusal Matter) [ 2016 (5) SCC 808 ]. 6. The learned counsel also argued that in view of the unblemished acquittal of the petitioner by the criminal court, all the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been dropped against him. The petitioner further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another [ AIR 1999 SC 1416 ]. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the enquiry officer had no personal knowledge about the alleged misconduct. He acted as an officer of the company to report the matter to the police based on the information received by him from the workers. Further, it is submitted that he conducted the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice after giving full opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter. It is further argued that these findings are supported by evidence. Therefore, it is argued that impartiality has to be tested objectively based on the procedure adopted rather than on a subjective analysis of the mind of the enquiry officer. It is also pointed out that there is nothing on record to indicate any other bias entertained by the enquiry officer. 8. Therefore, it is argued that impartiality has to be tested objectively based on the procedure adopted rather than on a subjective analysis of the mind of the enquiry officer. It is also pointed out that there is nothing on record to indicate any other bias entertained by the enquiry officer. 8. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to the reasonable apprehension of bias raised by the workman. What is a bias? According to me, bias has to be analysed from a given circumstances with respect to the objectivity and purpose of an enquiry. 9. In the given case, admittedly the enquiry officer lodged the complaint; that means he had a firm belief that the workman had committed theft. Without there being any belief or without forming any opinion that the workman committed theft, he could not have lodged a complaint; that means, the complaint lodged by him through whatever source of information he might have received was grounded on a footing that the workman had committed the theft. In fact, he deposed in the same line before the criminal court to support the case of the management. Therefore, it is clear that the enquiry officer while lodging the complaint had a firm opinion that the workman had committed the theft. Now, look at his role as an enquiry officer, he has to analyze the evidence before him. Two witnesses were examined. They deposed before the enquiry officer that they have seen him committing theft of the arecanuts belong to the management. Is it possible for an ordinary human being to think without there being an isolation of the opinion already formed by him through lodging a complaint? I am of the view that it is not possible. Having lodged a complaint alleging theft, he could not have resiled from it. In such circumstances, he could only have proceeded with a preconceived mind that the workman had committed theft. The bias is something which questions the very authority and impartiality of the person, who enquired into the finding and conducted the enquiry. Certain virtues required to be possessed in the conduct of the enquiry. No doubt, he may be the person of impeccable integrity or having honesty of highest order. The bias is something which questions the very authority and impartiality of the person, who enquired into the finding and conducted the enquiry. Certain virtues required to be possessed in the conduct of the enquiry. No doubt, he may be the person of impeccable integrity or having honesty of highest order. But that is not sufficient; not only his character must have any impeccable integrity, it must seemingly appeal to others that his conduct is free from partiality. In this case, the facts as above would be sufficient to hold that it created a reasonable suspicion on the mind of the workman to have an impression that the outcome of the enquiry is likely to be biased. If there are factors fortifying such reasonable suspicion, the court must incline to interfere with such proceedings of the enquiry officer, not for the reason of any doubtful character of the enquiry officer but for the reason that it did not inspire the confidence of a delinquent to have an independent impartial enquiry. 10. When a person accuses another through a complaint based on the information he received, certainly, it is to be presumed that he relied on the truth of the information he received. Therefore, such a complainant cannot become an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges against the delinquent employee in respect of misconduct, which is the subject matter of the complaint. The very purpose of constitution of an enquiry is to ensure an impartial finding by an enquiry officer. No doubt, if an enquiry officer is merely discharging certain duties attached to him without any occasion to form an opinion to take action against the delinquent officer, such an enquiry cannot be said to be vitated by bias. It is always to be remembered in a criminal case if a person lodged a false complaint, he is liable to be punished (See Sections 182 and 209 of IPC). Therefore, in a particular circumstance where an enquiry officer had occasion to file a complaint based on the information he received, it has to be assumed that he wants to ensure that the accused is punished. 11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the enquiry is vitiated for the simple reason that it was conducted by the same person, who lodged the complaint against the workman. In fact, in P.D.Dinakaran’s case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court took this view. 11. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the enquiry is vitiated for the simple reason that it was conducted by the same person, who lodged the complaint against the workman. In fact, in P.D.Dinakaran’s case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court took this view. Therein it was held that if there is a reasonable apprehension of likelihood of bias, that is sufficient to vitiate an enquiry by assimilating the legal maxim, nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the complainant in a criminal case cannot be termed as an impartial authority to enquire into the charges levelled against the delinquent. Thus, the enquiry finding is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, it is set aside. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that an opportunity should be given to the management to prove the misconduct as against the delinquent. The Tribunal, in fact, upheld the validity of the enquiry. Therefore, there was no occasion for the management to reserve liberty to adduce evidence. The learned counsel for the management sought leave of this court to adduce evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the delinquent. I am of the view that it is a matter of fairness to afford such an opportunity to the management. Accordingly, the impugned order and award are set aside. The management is given liberty to adduce evidence to substantiate the alleged misconduct against the petitioner. The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad on 12.7.2017. Thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal shall dispose of the case within a further period of four months.