Saleh Md Mizanur Rahman vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors.

“8.1

That the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside Assam Circle letter No. ASCO-1 1/20(22)/1/2022-HR and Admin dated 07.07.2023 as well as the impugned. order No. BSNLCO-PERS/ 13 (1 8)/2/2022-DPC-Part (1) dated 27.07.2023 (ANNEXURE-A/1).

8.2.

Cost of the application.

8.3.

Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.”

“12.

……….xxxx…………xxxxx These observations in A.K. Kopak's (supra) case were followed by another Constitution Bench of this Court in Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. The State of Mysore & Anr., l 19701 2 SCR 600. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, [1981] 2 SCR 533 a three-Judge Bench of this Court examined this aspect of natural justice. Sarkaria, J. who spoke for the Court, stated:-

"During the last two decades, the concept of natural justice has made great strides in the realm of administrative law. Before the epoch- making decision of the House of Lords in Ridge v. Baldwin, it was generally thought that the rules of natural justice apply only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; and for the purpose, whenever a breach of the rule of natural justice was alleged, Courts in England used to ascertain whether the impugned action was taken by the statutory authority or tribunal in the exercise of its administrative or quasi-judicial power. In India also, this was the position before the decision of this Court in Dr. Bina Pani Dei's case (supra); wherein it was held that even an administrative order or decision in matters involving civil consequences, has to be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. This supposed distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative decisions, which was perceptibly mitigated in Bina Pani Dei's case (supra) was further rubbed out to a vanishing point in A.K. Kraipak's case (supra) ......................... ".

On the basis of these authorities it must be held that even when a State agency acts administratively, rules of natural justice would apply. As stated, natural justice generally requires that persons liable to be directly affected by proposed administrative acts, decisions or proceedings be given adequate notice of what is proposed so that they may be in a position (a) to make representations on their own behalf;

(b)

or to appear at a hearing or-enquiry (if one is held); and (c) effectively to prepare their own case and to answer the case (if any) they have to meet.

13.

Natural justice has various facets and acting fairly is one of them. RBI which monitored the three amalgamations was required to act fairly in the facts of the case. The situation necessitated a participatory enquiry in regard to the excluded employees. Since the decision to exclude them from service under the transferee banks is grounded upon a set of facts the correctness whereof they deny, if an opportunity to know the allegations and to have their say had been afforded, they could have no grievance on this score. The action deprives them of their livelihood and brings adverse civil consequences and could obviously not be taken on the ipse dixit of RBI officers without verification of facts. It is quite possible that a manoeuvring officer of the banking company adversely disposed of towards a particular employee of such bank could make a report against such employee and have him excluded from further service under the transferee bank. The possibility of exclusion on the basis of some mistake such as to identity cannot also be ruled out. There is all the more apprehension of this type is the process has to be completed quickly and very often the records of a large number of employees have to be scrutinised. We are of the view that rules of natural justice apply to administrative action and in the instant cases the decision to exclude a section of the employees without complying with requirements of natural justice was bad.”

Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Ors in Civil Apeal Nos. 4458-4459 OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos

“25.

It is on the aforesaid jurisprudential premise that the fundamental principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, have developed. It is for this reason that the courts have consistently insisted that such procedural fairness has to be adhered to before a decision is made and infraction thereof has led to the quashing of decisions taken. In many statutes, provisions are made ensuring that a notice is given to a person against whom an order is likely to be passed before a decision is made, but there may be instances where though an authority is vested with the powers to pass such orders, which affect the liberty or property of an individual but the statute may not contain a provision for prior hearing. But what is important to be noted is that the applicability of principles of natural jsutice is not dependent upon any statutory provision. The principle has to be mandatorily applied irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any such statutory provision or not.

De Smith captures the essence thus - “Where a statute authorises interference with properties or other rights and is silent on the question of hearing, the courts would apply rule of universal application and founded on plainest principles of natural justice”.

Wade also emphasizes that principles of natural justice operate as implied mandatory requirements, non-observance of which invalidates the exercise of power. In Cooper v. Sandworth Board of Works[10] the Court laid down that:

'...although there is no positive word in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet justice of common law would supply the omission of Legislature”. Exhaustive commentary explaining the varied contours of this principle can be traced to the judgment of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors.[11], wherein the Court discussed plenty of previous case law in restating the aforesaid principle, a glimpse whereof can be found in the following passages:

“20.

The origins of the law can also be traced to the principles of natural justice, as developed in the following cases: In A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262 : (1970) 1 SCR 457, it was held that the rules of natural justice operate in areas not covered by any law. They do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. They are not embodied rules and their aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. If that is their purpose, there is no reason why they should not be made applicable to administrative proceedings also especially when it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi- judicial ones. An unjust decision in an administrative inquiry may have a more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial inquiry. It was further observed that the concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the inquiry is held and the constitution of the tribunal or the body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a Court that some principle of natural justice has been contravened, the Court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case. The rule that inquiry must be held in good faith and without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably is now included among the principles of natural justice.”

“35.

Thus, in our view, in the above peculiar circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that even if Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan had been given notice and he had mentioned this fact of job continuance in Libya as a reason, that would not have made any difference and would not have been treated as a satisfactory explanation under Rule 5(8)(i). Thus, on the admitted or undisputed facts, only one view was possible. The case would fall within the exception noted in S.L.Kapoor's case. We, therefore, hold that no prejudice has been caused to the officer for want of notice under Rule 5(8) (i). We hold against Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan under Point 5.”