Natural justice principles enforce mandatory questioning of charged officers on adverse evidence, with violation leading to action being invalidated, regardless of proven prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

PREFACE

1. S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan , (1980) 4 SCC 379 is a landmark decision of this Court, delivered more than half a century back, delineating the contours of the principles of natural justice, more particularly the right to be heard before one is condemned. The supersession of the New Delhi Municipal Committee was challenged on the ground that it was in violation of the principles of natural justice, since no show cause notice was issued before the order of supersession was passed. Linked with that question was the question whether the failure to observe the principles of natural justice matters at all, if such observance would have made no difference, iedthe admitted or indisputable facts speaking for themselves. The golden words of Hon’ble O. Chinappa Reddy, J. speaking for the three-Judge Bench, rings in our ears:

“24........In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced......” (Emphasis ours)

2. The above passage from S.L. Kapoor (supra) came to be noticed in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation , (1985) 3 SCC 545 and met with an unconditional approval. Hon’ble Y.V. Chandrachud, CJI. speaking for the Bench (which incidentally included Hon’ble O. Chinappa Reddy, J.) ruled that the said observations sum up the true legal position regarding the purport and implications of the right of hearing.

3. Close on the heels of Olga Tellis (supra), Another Constitution Bench upon a survey of precedents on the point of fair and impartial hearing observed in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel , (1985) 3 SCC 398 as follows:

“95. The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognized as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the subject-matter of that article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State action, it is a violation of Article 14: therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribuna