2005 Supreme(SC) 537

2005(3) Supreme 492
Supreme Court of India
(From Kerala High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Canara Bank —Appellant
versus
V.K. Awasthy —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2300 of 2005
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14274 of 2004)
Decided on 31-3-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Advocate, Ravindra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Shrish Kumar Misra, Advocate.

Important point
The scope of interference with quantum of punishment is not a routine matter.

Headnote:(i) Service Law—Dismissal from service—Principles of natural justice—A party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him—Unless failure of justice is occasioned or that it would not be in public interest to do so in particular case, this Court may refuse to grant relief to the concerned employee—Applicability of ‘useless formality theory’.

       Held : Natural justice is another name for commonsense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a commonsense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which has to determine its form. The expressions “natural justice” and “legal justice” do not present a water-tight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigants’ defence. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as aui alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the “Magna Carta”. The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to “vocate interrogate and adjudicate”. (Paras 8 to 10)

       Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. (Para 10)

       Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.(Para 11)

        Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the statute under which the enquiry is held. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. Expression ‘civil consequences’ encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations, and non-pecuniary damages. In its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life. (Para 14)

        How then have the principles of natural justice been interpreted in the Courts and within what limits are they to be confined? Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi-judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of man for fair-play and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all men. (Para 16)

        As was observed by this Court we need not to go into ‘useless formality theory’ in detail; in view of the fact that no prejudice has been shown. As is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant unless failure of justice is occasioned or that it would not be in public interest to do so in particular case, this Court may refuse to grant relief to the concerned employee. (Para 18)

       (ii) Service Law—Dismissal from service—Scope of interference with quantum of punishment—Bank official—Various allegations as laid in the departmental proceedings reveal that several acts of misconduct unbecoming a bank official were committed by respondent—Detailed charge sheets were served on the respondent employee—Respondent not only submitted written reply, but also participated in the proceedings—His explanations were considered—Inquiry Officer held the charges to have been amply proved —He recommended dismissal from service which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority—When challenged, High Court held that the order directing respondent’s dismissal from service was in violation of principles of natural justice—Division Bench of the High Court permitted respondent to make a detailed representation to the Disciplinary Authority in respect of enquiry proceedings and findings—Finding recorded by the Single Judge that no prejudice was caused to the writ petitioner and there was no violation of principles of natural justice—It was held that quantum of punishment is disproportionate—Respondent has reached the age of superannuation—Whether judgment of the High Court is sustainable—(No).

       Held : The conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench that there was violation of principles of natural justice cannot be maintained. Coming to the question whether the punishment awarded was disproportionate, it is to be noted that the various allegations as laid in the departmental proceedings reveal that several acts of misconduct unbecoming a bank official were committed by the respondent. (Paras 20 and 21)

       It is to be noted that the detailed charge sheets were served on the respondent-employee who not only submitted written reply, but also participated in the proceedings. His explanations were considered and the Inquiry Officer held the charges to have been amply proved. He recommended dismissal from service. The same was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The proved charges clearly established that the respondent-employee failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and his acts were prejudicial to the interest of the bank. In the appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority, the findings of the Inquiry Officer were challenged. The Appellate Authority after analyzing the materials on record found no substance in the appeal. The scope of interference with quantum of punishment has been the subject-matter of various decisions of this Court. Such interference cannot be a routine matter. (Paras 22 and 23)

        Aforesaid being the position, the decisions of the learned Single Judge on the quantum of punishment and of the Division Bench regarding alleged violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be maintained and are, therefore, set aside. The inevitable conclusion is that the order of dismissal as passed by the Appellant-Bank does not suffer from any infirmity. (Para 29)