What is the ‘real likelihood of bias’ test?

If a fair, reasonable person would think the officer was likely biased on the facts, the inquiry is invalid—actual bias need not be proved.

Was the inquiry officer authorised to act after demotion?

No. The Supreme Court found he lacked authority after ceasing to be Director-in-Charge.

Does denying access to documents affect fairness?

Yes. Refusal to give relevant files undermines a reasonable defence and violates natural justice.

What was finally ordered?

The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decision; the disciplinary action and compulsory retirement were set aside.

S. Parthasarthi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1973)

Quick Summary

A government employee was removed after a disciplinary inquiry run by an officer who allegedly bore personal hostility and was no longer authorised. The Supreme Court said the inquiry failed the real likelihood of bias test and also denied the employee a fair chance to defend himself by refusing key documents. The disciplinary action and compulsory retirement were struck down.

Core idea: Justice must be seen to be fair—actual bias need not be proved.
Outcome: Trial court restored; High Court reversed.

Issues

Did the inquiry fail due to a real likelihood of bias?
Could the officer continue the inquiry after demotion (loss of charge)?
Did refusal of relevant files deny a reasonable defence?

Rules

Bias test: Would a fair, informed person think bias was likely? If yes, inquiry is invalid.
Actual bias need not be shown; perception from facts is enough.
Natural justice requires access to documents needed for defence.
An officer must be properly authorised to conduct the inquiry.

Facts (Timeline)

CASE_TITLE

S. Parthasarthi worked as a clerk-cum-typist under Manvi in the PWD.
Manvi later became Director-in-Charge; disputes arose; charges were framed.
Despite objections of bias and authority (after Manvi’s demotion), Manvi continued the inquiry.
Request to inspect key files for defence was refused.
Order of removal led to compulsory retirement. Trial court set it aside; High Court restored it; appeal reached Supreme Court.

Timeline of disciplinary inquiry and appeals in S. Parthasarthi

Arguments

Appellant (Parthasarthi)

Manvi was hostile and tried to brand him “mentally unsound” → shows bias.
Manvi had no authority after losing charge → inquiry void.
Refusal of documents crippled defence → violation of natural justice.

Respondent (State)

No proof of actual bias; procedural objections are technical.
Inquiry substantially complied with rules; findings should stand.

Judgment

Held

Bias proved in law: On the facts, a fair observer would see a real likelihood of bias.
No authority: Manvi lacked power to continue after ceasing to be Director-in-Charge.
Unfair process: Denying documents violated the right to a reasonable defence.
Result: High Court judgment set aside; trial court decree restored; disciplinary action invalid.

Judgment setting aside disciplinary action due to bias

Ratio Decidendi

Natural justice demands both impartiality and fair opportunity. If facts show a real likelihood of bias and the defence is hampered by withholding documents, the inquiry cannot stand.

Why It Matters

Sets a clear, workable bias standard for service inquiries.
Stresses authority and proper appointment of inquiry officers.
Confirms access to relevant records as part of fair hearing.

Key Takeaways

Actual bias need not be proved; likelihood is enough.
Inquiry officer must be legally authorised throughout.
Denying relevant documents violates natural justice.
Disciplinary action based on such inquiry is void.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “BAT” — Bias likely, Authority lacking, Trial fairness denied.

Scan Bias: Would a fair person suspect prejudice?
Check Authority: Was the officer validly empowered?
Ensure Records: Were defence documents given?

IRAC Outline

Issue

Whether the inquiry stood vitiated by bias, want of authority, and denial of documents.

Rule

Real likelihood of bias test; lawful authorisation; fair hearing with access to relevant records.

Application

Facts showed hostility and improper steps; officer lacked authority; defence hampered by refusal of files.

Conclusion

Inquiry invalid; disciplinary action set aside; trial decree restored.

Glossary

Natural Justice: Fair hearing and unbiased decision-maker.
Real Likelihood of Bias: A reasonable person would think bias probably affected the inquiry.
Authority to Inquire: Legal power/appointment to conduct disciplinary proceedings.