EXCEPTIONS TO RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION

It has been acknowledged that law is a dynamic and living field and by only sticking on to the
techniques or severe recognition of the rules never can a reasonable and acceptable result be
accomplished. The innovative utilization of psyche and the suitable translation of the
different guidelines and arrangements of the laws is a critical region where the appointed
authorities have a basically major task to carry out in this regard. The incomparable and
sovereign power of the State to make laws, through the organ of law making body, is the
most basic element of a just foundation like India, and the laws sanctioned by the assembly
are obligated to be utilized subjectively without a very much set down method for its
application and organization. The rules of natural justice to be sure go far to cure the
circumstance emerging out of the take-off from this established system.

Natural justice is another name of common-sense justice, and its principles are not arranged
standards yet rules, imbued into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the organization of
justice from a typical perspective liberal way. Justice dependent on Natural Justice is that
dependent on normal goals and human qualities. In this manner, the administration of justice
is to be liberated from the limited and confined contemplations which are typically connected
with a detailed law, including semantic details and syntactic comforts. In the mid-1950s, in
the well-known English instance of Abbott v. Sullivan1, it was expressed that "the Principles
of Natural Justice are easy to proclaim, but their precise extent is far less easy to define".2

In fact, it is conceivable to bar the compulsory, mandatory and important rules of natural
justice in instances of express or suggested statutory prohibition, secrecy, impracticability to
give hearing, between interim preventive action, absolutely authoritative or managerial
activities, (for example, scholarly assessment or disciplinary activity) and so forth. Whatever
degree and in what conditions would it be helpful to apply these exclusions is an issue to be
controlled by the judiciary from case to case, in view of individual realities and conditions. A
liberated power has been given to the judicial interpreters who must exercise outrageous
consideration and alert while applying these rules. As need be, all the criteria for prohibitions

1
1952 KB 189.
2
Exception to Principles of Natural Justice Part-I, available at: https://lexquest.in/exceptions-to-principles-of-
natural-justice-part-i/ (last visited on April 10, 2020).

1
have been wonderfully and legitimately cut out of precedential confirmations. Judicial
imagination and activism might be seen at their top, in every single case.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

Every person is entitled to claim natural justice when their rights are infringed by the actions
of administration. The Courts have generally read into the provisions of the relevant sections
a requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order is made
which would have adverse civil consequences for the parties affected.3 However, there are
some exceptions to this rule of natural justice, where the demand of ‘natural justice’ is
excluded.

The rule of natural justice i.e., nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem, are not
statutory rules, though they have a fixed meaning and connotation in law, and their content
and implications are well understood and firmly established. However, these rules surrender
to and alter with the demand of different situations. They are not applied in the same way to
situations which are same. Thus, these rules are not rigid, but flexible. They can be adopted
and modified by the Constitution of the tribunal which has to decide a particular matter.

It is already known that Rules of Natural Justice adds to the established statutes with
indispensable connotations, likewise administrative authorities which perform public duties
are required to take in a “just course of action”. But the same rules may be ignored, where a
person having legitimate expectation of fair hearing or treatment and such rules are invoked
but the observance of such rules leads to injustice. This clearly implies that there are many
definite limitations on the Rules of Natural Justice. There are several circumstances that may
deprive a person of his claim on the benefits of natural justice, the author in this assignment
shall talk about these circumstances which have accepted as exceptions to the Rules of
Natural Justice by the Courts.

An important factor is that it is very necessary to comply with the rules of natural justice in
all circumstances, but when it is almost impossible to do so, these well-established exceptions
can be recourse to, in the absence of any other alternative.

The exceptions or exclusions may be based on statutory provisions or emergency/prompt

action in case of public interest, public safety or public health was found to be a reasonable,
3
C.B. Gautam v. Union of India, 1993 1 SCC 78.

2
valid and justifiable ground for exclusion of Principles of Natural Justice. 4 Subject to the
provisions of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution, the application of the rules of natural
justice can be excluded either expressly or by some important connotations. Certain
exceptions that disregard the application of rules of natural justice are as follows:

Statutory Exclusion

A court may imply Natural justice when the main statute under which an action has to be
taken by the Administration is silent with respect to its application. Natural justice can be
excluded by a statute expressly or by necessary connotations, but the statute needs to be
justifiable or else it can be challenged under Article 14 of the Constitution. 5 Similarly, it was
held in the case of Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation6,
that the statutory provisions which exclude the splication of rules of natural justice must not
be violative of Constitutional provisions. And in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation v.
D.T.C. Majdoor Congress7, it was observed that the exclusion of rules of natural justice
cannot be arbitrary and should be based on reasonable ground. If not, then it would obviously
be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this case, the validity
of Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Transport Authority was challenged on the ground that under
this regulation the authority can terminate the services of the permanent employees by just
giving them a notice without mentioning any reason in the notice and without offering them
any opportunity of hearing before passing of order for the termination of services. The court
held this regulation to be completely arbitrary, violating the rules of natural justice and
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In cases of Rash Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar8 and Umrao Singh Chaudhary v. State of M.P.9,
it was held that depending upon the express words of the provisions conferring the power, its
nature, purpose and the effect of the exercise of power, the exercise of power conferred could
be in accordance with the rules of natural justice or not.

Bhopal Gas Disaster case (Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India10) is an excellent example for
this particular exception. The Bhopal Gas Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which

4
Exception to Principles of Natural Justice Part-I, available at: https://lexquest.in/exceptions-to-principles-of-
natural-justice-part-i/ (last visited on April 10, 2020).
5
M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law 260 (5th ed., 2007).
6
AIR 1959 SC 1376.
7
AIR 1991 SC 101.
8
1994 5 SCC 267.
9
1994 4 SCC 328.
10
1990 1 SCC 613 1480 SC.

3
authorised the Government to represent victims in matters of compensation award, was
challenged on the ground that since 22 percent shares of the Union Carbide Company were

owned by the Central Government and this way it is a joint tortfeasor, hence a conflict
between the interests of the victims and the government. The Court applied the doctrine of
necessity and held that even though the argument was correct but if the government did not
represent all of the gas victims, no other sovereign body could and hence rules of natural
justice were not called Upon.

Exclusion in Emergency

It is generally understood in India in matters of extreme urgency, where public’s interest

would be jeopardized due to delay in a hearing, or in some exceptional cases of emergency
where prompt action is needed, the requirement of notice or hearing would be obviated. Thus,
law will exclude the right to be heard in any case where it will paralyze the process.11

In Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC,12 in the Firozpur Constituency, counting of votes for the
parliamentary elections was going on wherein counting in a few segments was over and in
few others was left. While a candidate from one of the parties was in a good lead, a mob
violence in some segments vandalised the ballot papers and boxes before the declaration of
results. The Election Commissioner acting under his powers and duties under Article 324,
329 of the Constitution cancelled the election and called for fresh election without giving any
notice or hearing to the candidates. The Supreme Court rejected the plea and held that in case
of emergency, audi alteram partem can be excluded. Thus, where uncalled action is required
to be taken for public safety, morality, or healthcare, the principle of natural justice may be
excluded. In the case of Babu Lal v. State of Maharashtra13, it was observed that a person
who is dangerous to the society and its peace can be detained or externed. Similarly, in the
case of Nathu Bhai v. Municipal Corporation Bombay14, it was observed that a building
which is harmful to human lives can be demolished excluding right to be heard of the owner
or people living in it. A trade that is menacing for the society can be prohibited (Cooverji v.
Excise Commissioner)15. In the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mill v. Union of India16, the Supreme
Court held that the word ‘immediate’ in Section 18AA of the Industries Development and

11
I.P MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 251 (Eastern Book Company, 8th ed. 2012).
12
1978 1 SCC 405 851 SC.
13
AIR 1961 SC 484.
14
AIR 1959 Bombay 333.
15
1954 SCR 873.
16
AIR 1981 SC 818.

4
Regulation Act does not imply that the rule of natural justice can be excluded. The audi
alteram partem rule is very flexible and adoptable concept of natural justice which can be
modified to adjust and harmonize and thereby the measure of its application may be cut short
in reasonable proportion to the exigencies of the situation.

The Doctrine of Necessity has been all around clarified in Halsbury's Laws of England where
it has been expressed that regardless of whether all the individuals from the Tribunal capable
to decide an issue were dependent upon preclusion, they may be approved and obliged to hear
that issue by uprightness of the activity of the customary law Doctrine of Necessity which has
been perceived and applied by the Supreme Court of India in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of
India17 and in case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India18 where the Supreme Court held that the
acceptance of the tender of the company in which his son was an employee, could not be
initiated merely because the said officer was a member of the Tender Evaluation Committee,
who was not a decision-maker at all and his involvement was necessary in view of Sec. 3(6)
of the Telegraph Act. Thus, the Court held that the acceptance of the tender could not be
declared invalid on the ground of bias.19

Exclusion in case of Legislative Function

The authoritative demonstration or capacity incorporates creation of rules and guidelines, for
example, the assigned or subordinate enactment and it is entrenched that authoritative
capacity or administrative act isn't dependent upon the standards of regular equity. As
indicated by Paul Jackson, a Pastor or some other body in making enactment isn't dependent
upon the standard of common equity. For instance, on account of forces got from the Royal
Prerogative, the courts may decline to meddle on the ground that the candidate has not been
denied of any legitimate right as if there should be an occurrence of De Freitas v. Benny20,
the Privy Council held that a Pastor couldn't be required to uncover the proof on which he put
together his recommendation with respect to the activity of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy
since "Mercy is not the subject of legal rights. It begins where legal rights end". Lord
Denning M.R. compactly communicated this legal mentality in R v. Secretary of State for the
Home Division21, "The rules of natural justice have to be modified in regard to foreigners here
who themselves unwelcome and ought to be deported."

17
AIR 1990 SC 1480.
18
AIR 1996 SC 11.
19
I.P MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 248 (Eastern Book Company, 8th ed. 2012).
20
1976 AC 238.
21
1977 WLR 766, 778.

5
A ground on which hearing might be avoided is that the activity of the Regulatory being
referred to is authoritative and not managerial in character. Normally, a request for general
nature, and not mattering to one or a couple of determined people, is viewed as administrative
in nature. Administrative activity, entire or subordinate, isn't dependent upon the principles of
normal equity on the grounds that these standards set out an arrangement without reference to
a specific person. On a similar rationale, standards of normal equity can likewise be barred by
an arrangement of the Constitution too. The Indian Constitution excludes the principles of
natural justice in Art. 22, 31(A), (B), (C) and 311(2) as an issue of strategy. In any case, if the
administrative rejection is discretionary, preposterous and uncalled for, courts may subdue
such an arrangement under Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution.

In MRF Ltd. v. Auditor, Kerala Government22, the court has clarified that the rule of
characteristic equity can't be imported in matter of administrative activity. On the off chance
that the authoritative, in exercise of its entire force under Article 245 of the Constitution,
continues to act in a law, the individuals who might be influenced by that law can't lawfully
raise a complaint that under the steady gaze of the law was made, they ought to have given a
chance of hearing. Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd.23, Prag Ice and Oil Plants v. Union
of India24, and C.L. Sahu v. Union of India25 are the ongoing Indian situations where it has
been held that administrative capacity or act isn't dependent upon the rules of natural justice
yet on the off chance that there is an arrangement in the resolution requiring the recognition
of the guidelines of natural justice, the arrangement must be conformed to and in this manner
in such condition the principles of natural justice would be required to be watched. In various
cases, the view has been communicated judicially that there is no doubt of conjuring of
regular equity, or hearing the influenced party, when administrative activity of an authority is
brought under the investigation of the Courts.

Exclusion in case of Confidentiality

Here and there the standard of natural justice is barred if there should be an occurrence of
privacy as in the case of Malak Singh v. Territory of Punjab26, where the Observation
Register keep up by the police is a mystery and secret archive and nobody can guarantee
22
AIR 1999 SC 188.
23
AIR 1987 SC 1802.
24
AIR 1987 SC 1768.
25
AIR 1990 SC 1490.
26
1981 1 SCC 420 760 SC.

6
access to it in spite of his name has been entered in the recorder. The recognition of the rules
of natural justice in such a case would nullify the point of reconnaissance and there is each
chance of the finish of equity being crushed as opposed to being served.

Rejection of natural justice can likewise occur when confidentiality is requested and is
important to be kept up.

In S.P. Gupta v. U.O.I27, where the SC held that no chance of being heard can be given to an
extra appointed authority of HC before his name is dropped from being affirmed it might be
called attention to that in a nation like India observation may give an intense limitation on the
freedom of the individuals, accordingly the upkeep of the reconnaissance Register can't be so
completely regulatory and non-legal that it is hard to consider the utilization of the rules of
natural justice.

Exclusion in case of Public Interest

The recognition of the rules of natural justice might be prohibited in the event that such
recognition would make injury the open enthusiasm as on account of Union of India v. Tulsi
Ram Patel28 the Supreme Court clarified that "the rules of natural justice can be kept away
from if its recognition will deaden the administrative procedure. The instances of open
intrigue incorporate the guard of the nation and support of state mystery and here the rules of
natural justice might be prohibited or abstained from keeping in see both of these interests. In
this way, the specialists are not required to uncover the data identifying with the protection
approach or guard matter in light of the fact that such divulgence may genuinely imperil the
barrier arranging of the Govt". On account of Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, a permanent
auditor in the Regional Audit Office, was sentenced u/s 332 of the Indian Reformatory Code
for causing head injury by iron bar to his predominant official, R.A.O. He was obligatory
resigned by the Disciplinary Authority under Principle 19(1) of the Central Civil Service
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 without holding enquiry and giving chance
of being heard under Article 311(2). The Supreme Court has held the request for necessary
retirement from administration was substantial under clause(a) of second proviso to Article
311(2). In one group of cases chose alongside the instance of Tulsi Ram Patel, a few
individuals from C.I.S.F separated the control in the Power and deliberately obliterated the
sets of the unrivalled. Military was called and there had been trade of fire among Military and
individual from C.I.S.F. for a couple of hours. Circumstance was extremely rough and there
27
AIR 1982 SC 149.
28
AIR 1985 SC 141.

7
was mass fear and danger to the dependable staff. The respondents who were individuals
from the said C.I.S.F. were excused from administration without holding request under
statement (b) of the stipulation to Article 311(2) and Rule 37(b) of the C.I.S.F. Decides on the
ground that it was sensibly practicable to hold request. The Supreme Court held the request
for excusal of the individuals from the C.I.S.F. was substantial under clause (b) to the second
proviso to Article 311(2). Essentially, in another group of cases chose by the Supreme Court
on similar grounds of Tulsi Ram Patel case, the Railway employees were dismissed from
service under clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) and Rule 14 of the Railway
Servant Rules for taking an interest in the illicit all India strike of the Railway employees.
The Railway administration was incapacitated, faithful specialists and unrivalled officials
were attacked and hinted, open intrigue and open great were preferentially influenced. There
was an incredible requirement for instant and quick activity to carry the circumstance to
ordinary and in these conditions the request was not sensibly practicable. Subsequently the
request for excusal was held legitimate. It is to be noticed that public interest is a legitimate
issue as if there should be an occurrence of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India29. The
assurance of the power that the prohibition of the rules of natural justice is in broad daylight
intrigue and isn't conclusive, the Court may look at whether the rejection is essential for the
security of the open intrigue. The Court can decide if the rejection of the guideline of natural
justice is in broad daylight intrigue or not. In this case, the Court has likewise held that in
circumstance where earlier hearing is abstained from on the ground of public interest, chance
of individual hearing must be given to the individual concerned. On the off chance that the
public interest requests post decisional hearing, at that point it must be brought in action.

Exclusion in case of impracticability to hold hearings or appeal

It is one of the most persuading reason that the quantity of people influenced by a specific
request, act or choice is so incredible as to make it obviously impracticable for them all to be
given a chance of being heard by the skilled authority previously. This is the motivation
behind why portrayal may not be required for the creation of guideline of an administrative
character without authoritative necessity. For instance, In R v. Aston University Senate30, the
huge number of candidates seeking rare asset may make it impracticable to offer every
candidate a hearing. On the off chance that, for instance, there are 1,000 candidates for 100
spots accessible in University law department it might be difficult to bear the cost of

29
AIR 1978 SC 597.
30
1969 2 QB 538.

8
meetings to a considerable lot of the individuals who, from the specifics provided with their
composed applications, show up adequately worthy or reasonable to warrant more full close
to home thought. In this situation, if the court finds that a break of procedural decency has
happened, managerial impracticability may even now be depended upon as an explanation
behind denying a cure in its carefulness.

Ensuing reasonable hearing or Advance, if the open position to settle on choices which don't
agree completely with procedural decency necessities if the individual influenced has
response to another conference or advance which itself gives reasonableness. There are
circumstances where the nonappearance of procedural decency before a choice is made can
be in this way and sufficiently be "relieved", for instance on appeal, an earlier hearing might
be superior to a resulting hearing, however an ensuing hearing is superior to no conference by
any stretch of the imagination; and now and again the courts have held that statutory
arrangements for an authoritative intrigue.

In R V Radhakrishanan v. Osmania University31, where the whole MBA placement test was
dropped by the University in view of mass replicating, the Court held that notice and hearing
to all candidates is unrealistic in such a circumstance, which had accepted national extents,
Hence the court approved the exclusion of rules of natural justice on the ground of
authoritative impracticability. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Andhra Steel Corporation v.
A.P. State Electricity Board32 held that a concession can be pulled back whenever without
managing any chance of hearing to affected people except from when the law requires in any
case or the authority is limited by promissory estoppels. In this case, the power board had
pulled back the concession in power rate with no notification and hearing to the litigant.

Exclusion in case of Academic Adjudication

Where nature of power is simply authoritative no privilege of hearing can be asserted, where
an understudy of the college was expelled from the moves for inadmissible scholastic
exhibitions without being given any per-decisional hearing. The Supreme Court in
Jawaharlal Nehru College v. B.S. Narwal33 held that the very idea of scholarly settling seems
to negative any privilege of a chance to be heard. In this manner if the skilful scholastic

31
AIR 1974 A.P. 283.
32
1991 3 SCC 263.
33
AIR 1980 SC 1666.

9
specialists look at and assess the work of a student over some stretch of time and proclaim his
work unacceptable, the rules of natural justice might be barred.

In a similar way in Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijay Shanker34 when the
commission dropped the assessment of the applicant in light of the fact that, disregarding
rules, the competitor composed his move number on each page of the appropriate response
sheet, the Supreme Court held that the rules of natural justice were not pulled in, the Court
saw that the rule of hearing be carefully translated in scholastic order and if this was
overlooked it would not exclusively be against the open intrigue yet in addition dissolve the
social feeling of decency. Notwithstanding, this avoidance would not make a difference in the
event of disciplinary issue or where the scholarly body performs non-scholastic capacities
conceding approval of indictment is absolutely authoritative functions, in this manner, rules
of natural justice are not included. In a similar way wiping out of offer for inability to execute
rent deed and to store security sum, held, would not draw in principle of natural justice.

Exclusion in case of interim preventive action

Alluringly, it might be to permit a hearing or a chance to make representations, or basically to

give earlier notification, before a choice is taken, rundown activity might be claimed to be
legitimate when a critical requirement for securing the interests of different people emerges.
There are in fact astoundingly hardly any circumstances in which the authorization powers
exist. For instance, interim anti-social conduct orders made without notice are not unlawful
where it is vital for the court to act critically to secure the interests of an outsider or to
guarantee that the request for the court is viable. There are various representations of
statutory arrangements which for reasons of public security or general wellbeing grant open
specialists to meddle with property or different rights. For instance: the demolition of
contaminated yields; the counteraction of the transport lank being carried on in a way
inconvenient to the interests of people in general or of investors or different leasers; denial on
section to an air terminal; suspension of the permit of an open help vehicle seizure of
indecent works.

Seizure of nourishment associated with not agreeing to sanitation necessities; nearby

authorities may inspect and test, drains and test sewers, channels and sterile comforts that it
accepts to be flawed and so forth.

34
AIR 1992 SCR (1) 668.

10
In a similar way if the authoritative power passed a suspension request in the idea of a
preventive activity and not a last request, the utilization of the standards of normal equity
might be barred. In Abhay Kumar v. K Srinivasan35, the establishment passed an Order
suspending the student from entering the premises of the organization and going to classes till
the pendency of a criminal body of evidence against him for wounding a co-student. This
order was challenged on the ground that it disregards rules of natural justice. The Delhi High
Court dismissing the conflict held that such a request could be contrasted and a request for
suspension pending enquiry which is preventive in nature so as to keep up ground harmony
and henceforth the rules of natural justice will not have any significant bearing.

Exclusion when no right of person is infringed

For some situation it has been proposed that an inquirer who is for reasons unknown
undeserving for specific cases (because of absence of option to claim) may relinquish the
privilege to procedural decency. Where no privilege has been presented on individual by any
rule nor any such right emerges from customary law, the standards of characteristic equity are
not pertinent, this being dependent on the guideline Ebi Jus ebi remedium and Injuria sine
damnum the previous means ‘where there is right there is remedy’ and later means ‘there
shall be legal right or interest to claim some interest or benefit’.

In J.R. Vohra v. Indian Export House (p) Ltd36., the Delhi Rent Control Act makes
arrangements for the making of restricted tenures, Section 21 and 37 of the Act accommodate
the end of constrained occupancies. The consolidated impact of these segments is that after
the expiry of the term a constrained tenure can be ended and warrant of ownership can be
given by the power to the proprietor with no notification of hearing to the occupant.
Maintaining the legitimacy of warrant of ownership without conforming to the standards of
characteristic equity, the Supreme Court held that after the expiry of the time of any
constrained occupancy, an individual has no privilege to remain under lock and key and
subsequently no privilege of his is preferentially influenced which may warrant the use of the
standards of regular equity.

Useless Formality Theory

This hypothesis is no uncertainty one more exemption to the utilization of the standards of
normal equity yet it ought to be utilized with incredible alert and prudence by the Court else

35
AIR 1981 Delhi 381.
36
AIR 1985 SCR (2) 899.

11
incidentally to be wheel of premature delivery of equity. It must be utilized where on the
conceded or undisputed realities just a single end is conceivable and under the law just a
single punishment is passable, the Court may not demand the recognition of the standards of
normal equity since it is purposeless to arrange its recognition.37

In Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution v.

Education Appellate Tribunal38, a teacher, who had been allowed leave for doing M. Phil,
infringing upon leave condition, had joined a Ph. D course. She was pulled out and
subsequent to thinking of her as answer, wherein she had conceded joining Ph. D course, her
administration was ended. She tested the end request before Karnataka Private Educational
Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975 thusly it is spoke to HC where end was held
invalid, yet SC held that chance to show cause was a bit much where realities are undisputed
and the influenced individual couldn't fourth any legitimate resistance.

In Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan39, a rule gave that if an employee stayed
missing without consent for a specific timeframe, it would result in his dismissal from the
post. As Mansoor stayed missing for over five years without authorization, his post was
esteemed to have abandoned, as he was not allowed a chance to be heard before the post was
announced to be empty. The Supreme Court dismissed the contention and held that there was
no prejudice to Mansoor in the realities of the case. On the off chance that Mansoor had been
heard it would not have had any effect.

PRESENT SITUATION THROUGH CASES

Madhukar Tulsiram Tayade v. Chairman Board of Directors, Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin

Bank, Akola40

In this case, the disciplinary authority awarded punishment to the petitioner without citing
any reason and without giving him any opportunity of hearing. The court held that his kind of
order suffers from irrationality and is in violation of rules of natural justice and thus cannot
37
S.L Kapoor v. Jagmohan, 1980 4 SCC 379, 395 136 SC.
38
1997 7 SCC 332.
39
AIR 2000 SC 2783.
40
2012(1) SCT 79.

12
be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed. And held it open for the
authorities to take a decision by duly complying with the rules of natural justice within a time
period of three months, with a rational order.

Lachhman Singh Chopra v. State Bank of India41

In this case, the petitioner was found guilty of the misconduct for accepting bribe in lieu of
sanctioning loans for farmers on the basis of the Departmental Inquiry Report by the
Disciplinary Authority, who then dismissed the petitioner. Appeals were made by the
petitioner before the appellate and revisional authorities challenging his dismissal by
claiming violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition
on the ground that rules of natural justice have been religiously complied with and it is up to
the Disciplinary Authority to decide the level of punishment as the charges against the
petitioner were serious in nature and which stood proved. Appeal against the dismissal was
thus rejected.

Harbans Lal v. Bank of India42

In this case, the petitioner was terminated from his service on the grounds of embezzlement
and misconduct, but he wasn’t issued a copy of inquiry report, however he categorically
confessed his acts along with acceptance of guilt. Appellant was given opportunity of
personal hearing as well, but he was found guilty of embezzlement after it was concluded that
the departmental enquiry was well based and supported by evidence along with his
confessional statement. Principles of natural justice were duly complied with at the stage of
enquiry holding. Only because inquiry report was not issued to him, that would not stop the
proceedings against him considering every charge against him stood proved, and that he
himself has confessed his act of misappropriation and embezzlement.

CONCLUSION

The author is of the end that the Courts both in India and England according to managerial
procedures made different special case to the necessity of Natural Justice Principles and
technique there off. Be that as it may, these exemptions are on the whole conditional and not
definitive, each special case to be pronounced permissible or in any case simply subsequent
to investigating the realities and conditions of each case. The primary goal behind the
compromise between the consideration and prohibition of security of Principles of Natural
41
2011(4) SCT 353.
42
2012(1) SCT 216.

13
Justice is to agreeably understand individual’s regular privileges of being heard and
reasonable method just as the open intrigue. Bigger open intrigue is to be permitted to
abrogate the individual’s intrigue where the equity requests.

The special cases to the standards of characteristic equity in UK and India principally
identifies with managerial procedures. The Courts in both these nations particularly in India
made different special cases to the prerequisite of common equity standards and strategies
considering different conditions like time, place, the caught peril, etc winning at the hour of
dynamic. It must be noticed that every one of these exemptions are fortuitous and not
definitive. They don't have any significant bearing in a similar way to circumstances which
are not the same. They are not unbending but rather adaptable. These standards can be
embraced and changed by resolutions and statutory guidelines likewise by the Constitution of
the Tribunal which needs to choose a specific issue and the principles by which such council
is represented. Each activity of the specialists to be viewed as an exemption must be
examined by the Courts relying on the common conditions. The situations where
characteristic equity standards have been rejected by suggestion propose that the Courts have
acknowledged the tenet despite the fact that the governing body has not embraced express
some statements along those lines however those cases seem to depend so vigorously on their
specific conditions that they don't yield an unmistakable general rule. There are doubtful and
furthermore intelligible occurrences where the courts have presumed that characteristic equity
was a bit much.

14