Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 103

CASE LAW ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

26. In the case of State of UP Vs State Law Officers Association (1994 (I) CLR 668) the Supreme Court held – “in the absence of guidelines, the appointments may be made purely on personal or political consideration and be arbitrary. This being so those who come to be appointed by such arbitrary procedure can hardly complain if the termination of their services is equally arbitrary. There need be no legal anxiety to save them.

27. Natural Justice in Disciplinary Proceedings:

The aim of Natural Justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law but supplement it.

[Supreme Court - (1969) 2 SCC 262; AIR 1970 SC 150 - A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India]

28. There must be ever present to the mind of men the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on the principle of Natural Justice which require that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings which affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in such proceedings.

[Ramseth vs. Collector of Dharbang, AIR 155 PAT 345]

29. The expression 'Natural Justice' conveys the notion that the result of the process should be just. There are two concepts underlying this doctrine, namely, the authority deciding the dispute should be impartial and the party to be affected should be given full and fair opportunity of being heard.

[C. Pitchiah vs. Andhra University - 1961 ALT. 317, AIR 1961 AP 465]

30. The term 'misconduct' means an act done willfully with a wrong intention and as applied to professional people; it includes unprofessional acts, even though such acts are not inherently wrongful. It also means a dereliction of or deviation from duty.

[Nahood Ali Khan, Inre, AIR 1958 AP 116]

31. Provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution in Disciplinary Cases:

The implications of the provisions of Article 311 have been the subject of a close examination by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has given exhaustive interpretation of the various aspects involved and they provide the administrative authorities authoritative guidelines in dealing with disciplinary cases.

[Purushotham Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36; Khem Chand vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300; and Union of India and another vs. Tlusiram Patel, 1985(2) SLR SC 576]

 32. Articles 310 and 311 apply to Government servants, whether permanent, temporary, officiating or on probation.

[Purushotham Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36]

33. Administration action is subject to judicial review on four grounds:

(i)      Illegality

(ii)     Irrationality

(iii)   Procedural impropriety and,

(iv)   Doctrine of proportionality of penalty or duty to act justly

Union of India Vs. Paramananda (AIR 1989 SC 1185) Shankar Das Vs. Union of India AIR 1985 SC 772)