CASE LAW ON PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
34. Traditional elements of fair hearing lies in the
principle of natural justice – book on “New Jurisprudence”.
(i)
One cannot be a judge in this own cause,
and the judge cannot be prosecutor – this is maxim of neutrality.
(ii)
No one is to be condemned unheared –
this is maxim of opportunity to represent one’s case.
(iii)
Notice must fairly disclose the charges
a person has to meet and that reasonable time must be given to him to make his
defence. This is “maxim of notice”
(iv)
No one should be taken by surprise and
there should be therefore full disclosure of all evidence and documents on
which a decision is to be taken against a person. This is “maxim of rule
against surprise”.
(v)
Claim to be represented by lawyers
(defence assistant). This is rules of adequate legal representation.
(vi)
A right to cross examine evidence and
challenge facts. This is “rule of tested evidence”.
(vii) The
incidental right to call evidence, oral and documentary and the necessary
facility to have subpoena for the same for compulsory testimony. This is the
“rule of facility”, for evidence and presentation of facts.
(viii) A right to full judgment which should disclose the reasons for the order and not the order merely. This is the “rule of reasoned decision” and finally.
(ix) The right to appeal for further and higher judgments. This is rule of balancing variable human judgments”.
35. Sanction under
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 necessary for Prosecution:
The question of sanction is of
paramount importance for protecting a public servant who has acted in good
faith while performing his duty. In order that the public servant may not be
unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory
on the part of the executive authority to protect him... If the law requires
sanction, and the court proceeds against a public servant without sanction, the
public servant has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire
action may be rendered void ab-initio.
[ANIL KUMAR & ORS Vs. M.K. AIYAPPA & ANR, 2013-TIOL-50-SC-SERVICE]
36. Charge and
Punishment for Passing Wrong Order in Adjudication Proceedings:
An error in interpretation of law
cannot be a ground for misconduct unless it is deliberate and actuated by mala
fides. If an error of law would constitute misconduct, it would be difficult to
independently function for a quasi judicial officer. Such an action could
always be corrected in appeal.
[Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs. Union of India and others - 2002-TIOL-130-SC-CX]
37. Disciplinary
proceedings could be initiated against a government servant concerned with
regard to exercise of quasi judicial powers, if the act or omission is such as
to reflect on the reputation of the government servant for his integrity or
good faith or devotion to duty; there is a prima facie material manifesting
recklessness or misconduct in discharge of the official duty; the officer had
failed to act honestly or in good faith or had omitted to observe the
prescribed conditions which are essential for the exercise of statutory power.
[Union of India and others vs. Shri K.K. Dhawan - 2002-TIOL-441-SC-MISC-LB]
38. While performing
judicial or quasi judicial functions, if the authority acted negligently or
omitted essential conditions prescribed for exercise of such power,
disciplinary proceedings could be initiated.
[Union of India and others vs. Duli
Chand - 2006-TIOL-78-SC-MISC-LB]
39. Natural Justice – Nemo judex in causa sua – Bias.
Thomas
Pothen v. Sr. Suptd. Of Post Offices, (1987) 3 ATC 876 (Mad)
No comments:
Post a Comment