Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 100 : (Compiled By Com Kayveeyes)

 Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 100 : (Compiled By Com Kayveeyes)

CASE LAW ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

9. The High Court of Karnataka in the case of GR Venkateswara Reddy Vs KSRTC ( 1995 (I) LLJ 1020 ) – “the right to be heard, by following a reasonable procedure in an enquiry necessarily envisages and invites the following, subject to any special provision relating to procedure in the relevant rules / regulations.

i.     The employee shall be informed of the exact charges which he is called upon to meet.

ii.    He should be given an opportunity to explain any material relied on by the management to prove the charges

iii. The evidence of the management witnesses should be recorded in the presence of delinquent employee and he should be given an opportunity to cross examine such witness

iv.   The delinquent employee shall either be furnished with copies of the documents relied on by the management or be permitted to have adequate inspection of the documents relied on by the disciplinary authority.

v.    The charged employee should be given the opportunity to produce relevant evidence both documentary and oral which include the right to examine self and other witnesses and to call for relevant and material documents in the custody of employer.

vi. When the enquiry authority is different from disciplinary authority, the charged employee shall be furnished with a copy of the enquiry report and be permitted to make a representation to the disciplinary authority against the finding recorded in the enquiry report

However as observed by the High Court of Allahabad (1990 (I) LLJ 548) – “the opportunity of hearing on the principles of natural justice does not mean an opportunity to prove irrelevant facts”              

10. The Delhi High Court (1992 (II) LLJ 579) had opined that – “if for example, principle of natural justice have been violated then it is open to the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion that a DENOVO enquiry should be held”

11. The Madras High Court (1990 (II) LLJ 273) held – “non observance of principles of natural justice itself is prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary”              

12. In the words of Supreme Court in Tulsiram Patel case ( 1985 (II) LLJ 245 ) – “ 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 run thus. Violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is same as discrimination. Where discrimination is the result of State action, it is violative of Article 14”