It has developed around the twin pillars of common law having almost universal application: ‘hear the other side’ and ‘no man shall be judge in his own cause’.
The principles of natural justice are considered as a safeguard for the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against arbitrary procedures that may be adopted while making an order affecting his rights. The principles provide guidelines for disciplinary action against an erring employee and are intended to prevent the authority from doing injustice. They have subjected the common law right to punish an employee to certain specific restrictions and no punishment can be upheld if it is imposed without observing them. These principles mean and include that a person whose civil rights are affected must have a reasonable notice of the case; that he must have reasonable opportunity of being heard in defense; that the hearing must be by an impartial authority; and that the authority must act in good faith. Although the precise extent of the rules of natural justice has not been clearly defined, their acceptance by the various High Courts and the Supreme Court has given them a character of positive law in our country. Accordingly, these principles are enforceable in all courts of law, statutory or otherwise, and on all persons discharging judicial or quasi-judicial functions. These principles also apply in case of enquiries conducted by domestic tribunals into the conduct of an employee.
Meaning and Implications
Precisely, natural justice is a concept which has derived its authority not from any statute book but from the natural sense of what is right and what is wrong. In other words, natural justice is “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and the state of man that, without observing its maxims the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved”. It will, therefore, appear that natural justice continues to remain in the domain of natural law and has not yet taken the shape of positive law. It is still followed in unwritten, uncodified and unenacted from and is of general application.
The principles of natural justice, however, operate where the law itself is silent and is not inconsistent with what they provide. Where any provision of these principles is expressly or impliedly negated by law, it cannot be said that the enactment giving that law is ultra vires and unconstitutional. If a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application of any or all the rules of natural justice then the court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature or the statutory authority and read into the concerned provision the principles of natural justice. The rules of natural justice thus apply only in areas not covered by any law validly made. These rules are not equivalent to fundamental rights nor are they subordinate to constitutional and statutory law of the country. In short, they don not supplant the law but supplement it.
The application of the natural justice to industrial employment is in recognition of the expanding concept of social justice. Though the management of the organization has the power to direct its own internal administration and discipline, the emergence of this modern concept has resulted in subjecting managerial discretion to certain restrictions. An employee has to be protected against vindictive or capricious action on the part of the master who had at one time the unfettered right to hire and fire. Today, the latter is required to comply with a series of formalities before punishing his employee. The observance of the principles of natural justice has, indeed, become a prerequisite for departmental action. Consequently, an employer while proceeding against a defaulting employee must ensure that his actions conform to these principles. It this is not done the entire action may be questioned and quashed.
Different Principles
The principles of natural justice, so far as they related to departmental action, are mainly five-fold:
First, no man should be condemned unheard. A person accused of any charge cannot be adjudged guilty and penalized unless he has notice of the proceedings and an opportunity of stating his case fully. The person must get a chance to explain his conduct relating to the specific charges for which he is proposed to be punished. This principle necessitates that an employee, against whom action is contemplated, must be given a charge-sheet containing the charges against him and be allowed to submit his explanation and put up his case.
Secondly, every person must be given reasonable opportunity for defense. It is not merely enough to give a hearing to the person against whom action is being taken; he must be offered adequate and timely opportunities to prove his innocence and produce witnesses and documents in support of that. No hard and fast rule can, however, be laid down regarding what constitutes reasonable opportunities and what does not. Each case has to be decided on its own merits.
Thirdly, there should be fair and impartial enquiry. The hearing should be before an unbiased authority who is neither directly nor indirectly, a party to the case. This also presupposes that a man should not be the judge in his own case; he cannot be both a judge and an advocate at the same time. This flow from the requirement that decision should be based on good faith and if a man is to judge his own case, then the decision may not be in good faith. It may be conceivable that a man may do full justice with the other side in spite of the fact that he is himself interested in the case. But this is not sufficient because justice must not only be done but should demonstratively and undoubtedly seem to be done.
Fourthly, the delinquent must be given the opportunity to rebut an evidence. The evidence against him should be adduced in his presence so that he gets the chance to examine and question the same. Further, a mere opportunity to explain the conduct or question an evidence is not enough; facilities should equally be given for production of defense. In short, the delinquent should have fair opportunity in an orderly procedure to state his ease and to meet effectively the accusations made against him. He should have full freedom to correct or contradict an evidence prejudicial to him and to cross examine the witness to test the veracity of their statements.
Finally, an indirect requirement of the principles of natural justice is proportionate punishment. The punishment to be imposed after the departmental proceedings must be commensurate with the nature of the offence. It cannot be grossly disproportionate with the act or omission for which the person is being penalized. The gravity of the offence should, inter alia, be taken into consideration while deciding upon the punishment. For a lapse of minor nature, ordinarily, there should not be major penalty although repetition of such minor lapses or unsatisfactory previous record, may attract graver punishment.
(SHAECH MONITORING DESK)
Flexibility of the Principles
The principles of natural justice are not inflexible rules. They may be varies to suit the needs, the necessities and requirements of varying peculiar situations by different types of authorities and tribunals. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must be depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principles of natural justice had 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.
While taking action against an erring employee, it is necessary for every disciplinary authority to ensure observance of the following:
1. The employee proceeded against is clearly informed of the charges levelled against him.
2. He gets a reasonable notice of the case he has to meet.
3. He is given opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies.
4. Evidence in support of the charges is normally taken in his presence.
5. He is given the chance to cross-examine the witness or witnesses examined in support of the charge.
6. No material is relied upon against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them.
7. An enquiry is conducted by a person who is neither directly nor indirectly a party to the case.
8. The enquiry officer acts in good faith and records his findings with reasons thereof in his report.
9. There is no excessive and unjustifiable delay in initiating and completing the action.
10. The punishment imposed is not grossly disproportionate with the nature of the offence or misconduct.