Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 76

CCS Rules & Principles of Natural justice

VI. One who hears must decide

As a general rule "he who hears should decide". In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRT Corpn.; setting aside the order passed by the State Government, Subha Rao, J. (as he then was) observed;

This divided responsibility is destruction of the concept of judicial hearing. Such a procedure defeats the object of personal hearing. Personal hearing enables the authority concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses and clear-up his doubts during the course of the arguments, and the party appearing to persuade the authority by reasoned argument to accept his point of view. If one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. We therefore hold that the said procedure followed in this case also offends another basic principle of judicial procedure.

[Gullapalli Nageswar Rao v. A.P.S.R.T. Corpn., AIR 1959 SC 308]

VII. Even a prisoner can have his friend

The right of representation by a lawyer is not considered to be a part of natural justice and it cannot be claimed as of right unless the said right is conferred by Statute. In Pett v. Greyhound Racing Assn, Lord Denning observed;

"When a man's reputation or livelihood is at stake, he not only has a right to speak by his own mouth. He has also a right to speak by his counsel or solicitor........ Even a prisoner can have his friend." Thus where the evidence is voluminous or where complicated questions of law are involved or where a man's reputation or livelihood is at stake, he may not be able to defend himself effectively, he may be nervous, confused, tongue-tied, incoherent or wanting in intelligence. In these circumstance, he should not be denied legal assistance."

[Pett v. Greyhound Racing Assn, (1968) 2 All ER 545 (549)]

1.    Speaking order or Reasoned Decisions

i. A speaking order means an order speaking for itself. In other words it means that an order must contain reasons in support of it. The party affected must know why and on what grounds an order has been passed against him. This is one of the cardinal principles of natural justice.

ii. it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is like the principles of audi alteram parterm, a basic principle of natural justice which must conform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law.

[Seimens Engineering v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785.]

iii. Ordinarily those reasons are required to be communicated to the aggrieved party unless there is justification for non-communication. But it may be that in a given case the reasons may not be communicated in public interest. But if an order or action is taken without any reason the same is arbitrary and unreasonable and requires to be quashed and set aside.