History:

It is an appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 20.1.2004 of the Kerala High Court in
W.A. No. 589 of 2000 and appellant is challenging in this Appeal as to correctness of the
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. It was held that the order
Tras passed without proper application of mind regarding the findings recorded by the
Disciplinary Authority on the basis of report of the enquiry officer, and relating to imposition
of punishment. Therefore, High Court permitted the respondent - writ petitioner to make a
detailed representation to the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the enquiry proceedings
and findings, which have to be done within a stipulated time and directions were given to
the Disciplinary Authority to consider the submission and pass a fresh order. High Court also
directed that the period during which respondent was out of service was to be
Treated as period under suspension.

Facts:
A show cause notice was issued on 2.7.1992 to the respondent in present appeal. Since the
respondent was not working at the Branch where he was originally posted and was living at
Kanpur, the notice was served on him on 6.8.1992 and 15 days' time was granted for the
purpose of filing response and his termination order was passed on 17.8.1992. Kerala High
Court held that respondent's dismissal from service was in violation of the principles of
natural justice and appeal went to the Supreme Court.
FACTS
Challenge in this Appeal is to correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
the Kerala High Court holding that the order directing respondent's dismissal from service
was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was held that the order was
passed without proper application of mind regarding the findings recorded by the
Disciplinary Authority on the basis of report of the enquiry officer, and relating to imposition
of punishment. However, High Court permitted the respondent - writ petitioner to make a
detailed representation to the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the enquiry proceedings
and findings, within a stipulated time and direction was given to the Disciplinary Authority to
consider the submission and pass a fresh order. High Court further directed that the period
during which respondent was out of service was to be treated as period under suspension,
and the employee was to be paid subsistence allowance. It would be relevant to note that
the respondent filed a Writ Petition questioning the order directing his dismissal from
service. Learned Single Judge came to hold that the quantum of punishment i.e. dismissal
from service was disproportionate to the misconduct proved. It was however, held that no
prejudice was caused to the writ petitioner and there was no violation of principles of
natural justice. Both the writ petitioner and the present appellant had preferred writ appeals
before the High Court, which were heard and disposed of by the impugned common
judgment.

Legal Issue
The question before the Court was whether principles of natural justice had been violated;
and if so, to what extent any prejudice has been caused

CONTENTIONS OF APELLENT
The Appellant submitted that the show cause notice was issued on 2.7.1992. Since the
respondent was not working at the Branch where he was originally posted and was living at
Kanpur, the notice was served on him on 6.8.1992 and 15 days, time was granted for the
purpose of filing response. Order was passed on 17.8.1992. Even though the respondent-
employee preferred an appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority, in the
Memorandum of Appeal there was no stand taken that there was any prejudice caused to
him on account of the fact that the order was passed prior to the expiry of the indicated
period. He was given personal hearing by the Appellate Authority. Before him also no such
stand was taken and no plea regarding any prejudice was raised

Contentions of the Respondent

The respondent-employee submitted that prejudice is writ large and did not be pleaded.
Merely because no specific ground regarding prejudice was taken either in the
Memorandum of Appeal or at the time of personal hearing that does not cure the fatal
defect of violation of principles of natural justice.

JUDGEMENT
Natural justice is another name for common sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not
codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice
is the administration of justice in a common sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially
on natural ideals and human values. The administration of justice is to be freed from the
narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated law
involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice
which has to determine its form.
The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of
supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between
the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These
principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as
audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the
first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party
determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so
as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such
reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential
that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against
him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved
rule of fair play.
Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as
being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure
that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi- judicial and administrative authority while making
an order affecting those rights.
These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice.
Coming to the question whether the punishment awarded was disproportionate, it was to
be noted that the various allegations as laid in the departmental proceedings reveal that
several acts of misconduct unbecoming a bank official were committed by the respondent.
It is to be noted that the detailed charge sheets were served on the respondent-employee
who not only submitted written reply, but also participated in the proceedings. His
explanations were considered and the Inquiry Officer held the charges to have been amply
proved. He recommended dismissal from service. The same was accepted by the Disciplinary
Authority. The proved charges clearly established that the respondent- employee failed to
discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and his acts were
prejudicial to the interest of the bank. In the appeal before the prescribed Appellate
Authority, the findings of the Inquiry Officer were challenged. The Appellate
Authority after analysing the materials on record found no substance iN THe appeal.