PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) IT becomes advisable sometimes to look into the law before focusing on the facts, in particular where the facts are a little lengthy, disputed and situationally entwined. It helps to identify as to what part of the controversy is relevant and what part is irrelevant.

( 2 ) MANY a challenge, when the findings of a domestic enquiry are in question, are based on the ground that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is alleged that material gathered behind the back of the employee was used. It is alleged that adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not given. It is alleged that defence was not given an adequate opportunity to produce evidence. Should the result of the domestic enquiry be set to naught if any such infraction is found? Does law require something more to be found faulty?

( 3 ) LAW on the subject can be traced to the decision in 1874 LR 9 where it was held that a decision given without regard to the principles of natural justice is void. Most judgments, however, trace the origin to the decision of the House of Lords, 1964 AC 40, Ridge vs. Baldwin where Lord Reid said:

"the body with the power to decide cannot lawfully proceed to make decision until it has afforded to the person affected a proper opportunity to state his case. "it may however be noted that in said case, the appellant who was a Chief Constable was dismissed by the Brighton Watch Committee, without any notice or hearing. Unilateral action was taken against the appellant based on adverse comments against him in a criminal proceedings. The violation found by the House of Lords was thus of a fundamental nature. It was a case of total violation of the principles of natural justice.

( 4 ) RIDGE vs. Baldwin came to be considered by the privy Council in 1968 (1) WLR 1278, M. Vasudevan Pallai vs. City Council of Singapore. Appellant had participated in the enquiry but some material gathered at the back of the appellant and not supplied to him was used. In appeal, de- novo hearing was afforded. Matter reached the Privy Council. Referring to ridge vs. Baldwin it was held that ratio of the said judgment pertained to a fundamental defect. In the instant case, it was held, fair hearing was granted at the appellate stage and the defect at the initial stage stood cured.

( 5 ) THE judgment in M Vasudevan Pallai s case would therefore bring home the point that what is required to be considered is, whether the hearing process, original as well as appellate as a whole, has or has not resulted in a fair hearing.

( 6 ) RIDGE vs. Baldwin 1990 (2) AC 876, Al Mehdawi vs. Secretary of State was a case where the House of Lords was concerned with a case where appellant was served with a notice of hearing. He engaged a solicitor to defend him. When date of hearing was notified to the solicitor by the defendant, he in turn could not get in touch with the appellant who went unrepresented and unheard. Orders were passed against the appellant at an ex-parte hearing. Dismissing the appeal, the House of Lords held that a party which looses its right of hearing through his own default or the default of someone to whom it has entrusted the case cannot complain of denial of natural justice.

( 7 ) THE decision in Al Mehdawi s case would therefore bring home the point that principles of natural justice impose standards of procedural fairness on the decision making authority and it matters not if the person affected does not receive a fair hearing due to his default. The supreme Court of Canada in (1988) 2 SCR 387, R. vs. Beare held that natural justice guarantees fair procedure but does not guarantee the most favourable procedure that can possibly be imagined .

( 8 ) AS law developed, test of prejudice to be shown, come to be evolved. In (1971) 2 All ER 1278 Maloch vs. Aberdeen Corpn. The House of Lords stated:

"the appellant has first to show that his position was such that he had, in principle, a right to make represent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document