Judgment Intelligence
Petition Allowed
Virat Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (with Rekha Rani Vyas v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
2026:RJ-JP:40680
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19016/2026 with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3370/2026
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 5 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — Section 90
Final Outcome
Preliminary enquiry and the subsequent proceedings arising from it quashed; matter remitted to the State to order a fresh enquiry by the concerned officers without respondent No. 6, within four weeks of receipt of the certified copy; both writ petitions disposed of (paras 16-19).
Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 05.10.2026
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The petitioners challenged a letter of 31.07.2026 of the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar, and the preliminary enquiry on whose basis a charge-sheet was proposed against them (paras 3-4). The 2013 direct recruitment of Junior Assistants was conducted by the District Establishment Committee under Section 90 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, under the supervision of the then Chief Executive Officer (para 8). When irregularities surfaced, the same officer, by then District Collector, Alwar, ordered an enquiry, and a three-member committee found irregularities (paras 8-9). The State replied that it had decided to debar her from the enquiry, which would now be held at State level by other persons, so no cause of action survived (para 6).
Court's Findings
Natural justice forbids anyone being a judge in his or her own cause (para 10). The officer was involved in the recruitment and then ordered the preliminary enquiry into it, so the possibility of bias could not be ruled out and the maxim nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa applied (para 10). The question is not whether the authority was actually biased or partial: where the circumstances create a reasonable apprehension in others' minds of a likelihood of bias affecting the decision, the proceedings cannot be upheld (para 11). The Court relied on Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, which holds that a reasonable likelihood of bias is enough and extends the rule to administrative bodies and selection processes, and on Canara Bank v. Debasis Das on procedural fairness and the two basic rules of natural justice (paras 12-13). Because the former Chief Executive Officer ordered the enquiry as District Collector and the committee acted at her instance, the petitioners' apprehension of bias arose (para 14). The entire preliminary enquiry was therefore vitiated, and on this count alone it and the proceedings arising from it could not stand (paras 15-16).
Legal Principle
An officer who supervised a recruitment process cannot later order the enquiry into irregularities in that process. Actual bias need not be shown: circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension of a likelihood of bias vitiate the enquiry and the proceedings that arise from it (paras 10-11, 15-16).
Precedents Relied Upon
Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (1985) 4 SCC 417
Applied · Discussed at ¶ 12
No one can be a judge in his own cause; a reasonable likelihood of bias, not actual bias, is the test, and the rule extends to administrative bodies and selection processes. Applied to an enquiry ordered by the officer who had supervised the recruitment.
Canara Bank and Others v. Debasis Das and Others (2003) 4 SCC 557
Relied Upon · Discussed at ¶ 13
Procedural fairness is mandatory; natural justice rests on two rules, nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem.
