In the case of Nagar Palika, Nataur Vs. U.P. In the case of Ajit K Nag Vs. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation (2005) 7 SCC 764, it was held that non-observance of principles of natural justice vitiates the order, only when some real prejudice is caused to the complainant by such omission. These rules were part of the law and procedure during the British Raj also, and are being observed in India since time immemorial. Company Registration No: 4964706. Anil K Bansal is the Chief Manager, Legal, Central Bank of India’s Mumbai Metro Zonal Office. In the case of Chatterji Vs. Durgadutt, 23 Cal LJ 436, it was held that the law never acts by stealth; it never condemns any one unheard, so that a personal judgment rendered against a party without notice or an appearance by him, is vitiated by the same infirmity as a judgment without jurisdiction. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on the website then please: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! It is to be seen that rules of natural justice are not codified anywhere; they are procedural in nature and their aim is to ensure delivery of justice to the parties. Cannot be used in conjunction with other promotional codes. In the case of Mohini Vs. General Manager, Syndicate Bank 2 Bank CLR 629, it was held that remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act is comprehensive than Article 226 of the Constitution. Additionally, investigators and decision makers must act without bias in all procedures connected with the making of a decision. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made, in other words, they do not supplant law, but supplement it. In the case of A.K. If the order is not supported by reasons, it will amount to violation of the rules of natural justice. Investigators and decision makers should not base their decisions on speculation or suspicion, or on assurances of what might be done at a future date. Administrative Law by a person who is neither directly nor indirectly interested in the case. A decision maker must be impartial and must make a decision based on a balanced and considered assessment of the information and evidence before them without favouring one party over another. Prior to this, he worked in Punjab National Bank as Law Officer, before which he practiced as an advocate for about five years. The Hearing Rule This rule requires that people must be allowed an opportunity to present their case where their interests and rights may be affected by a decision maker. The first rule is ‘nemo debet esse judex in propria causa’, which means that no man shall be judge in his own cause. These principles thus supplement the law and prevent the occurrence of injustice. The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals are not penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the cases against them, a fair opportunity to answer them, and the oppor… Promotion runs from 00:01am to 11:59pm (GMT/UTC) on the 27th November 2020. These principles are now well settled and can be summarised as under: (i)    That every person whose civil rights are affected, must have a reasonable notice of the case he has to meet, (ii) That he must have reasonable opportunity of being heard in his defence, (iii)  That the hearing must be by an impartial tribunal, (iv)  That the authority must act in good faith and not arbitrarily, (v)   The order should be a speaking order. Adherence to rules of natural justice, as recognised by all civilised States, is of supreme importance, when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties or any administrative or disciplinary action is in question. There is a feeling among legal luminaries that the requirement of providing reasons for any decision gives an assurance that the evidence relating to the case has been duly considered by the authority. What particular rule of natural justice should be applied depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The words ‘natural justice’ are derived from the Roman word ‘Jus Naturale’, which means principles of natural law, justice, equity, and good conscience. However, the rules are often treated separately. So, in the absence of any codified law, proceedings under departmental enquiries are mainly governed by the principles of natural justice. Rather, an investigator or decision maker should be able to clearly point to the evidence on which the inference or determination is based. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. If it is shown that an employer was actuated by a desire to victimise a workman, that may in some cases introduce an infirmity in the order of the disciplinary authority. The responsibility to record reasons works as obstacles against arbitrary action by the judicial power vested in the executive authority. On appeal, it was held that the order was not a speaking order, with no application of mind to the points raised by the employee. The third rule is that an administrative decision must be based on logical proof or evidence. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, 1998 SCC (L&S)567, despite reminders, the employee neither submitted reply to the charge sheet, nor appeared before the enquiry officer, and neither did he inspect the records, in spite of the opportunity given to him. This rule of natural justice of ‘speaking order’ is a comparatively new dimension added to the principles and now emphasis is placed on giving reasons in the findings. These principles did not originate from any divine power, but are the outcome of the necessity of judicial thinking, as well as the necessity to evolve the norms of fair play. Departmental enquiries relating to the misconduct of individuals should conform to certain... Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa. To ensure that these rights are respected, the decision maker must give people the opportunity to prepare and present evidence, and to respond to arguments presented by the opposing side. One of the standards is that the person concerned must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. It must at least show that there was proper appreciation of evidence and application of mind before passing it. With the evolution of society, as well as legal jurisprudence, the concept of natural justice has also undergone change. However, the courts have repeatedly held that no two cases can be equal; each case is to be decided according to its merits and circumstances. This is that procedure which is held by the courts to be the rules of natural justice. These may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. Orders placed without a payment will have the discount removed, but continue as normal. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied in any statute. Don’t drink, Guidance for District Licensing Committees, 1.4.4 The three ‘rules’ of natural justice. The aggrieved party has the chance to demonstrate before the appellate and revisional court that what was the reason which makes the authority to reject it. Orders of the disciplinary authority, which involve civil consequence, must be consistent with the rules of natural justice, otherwise the orders are likely to be set aside by the courts. –in taking any decision. In the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati  2006(2) SCALE 101, it was held by the Supreme Court that non-supply of documents on which the enquiry officer does not rely during the course of enquiry, does not create any prejudice to the delinquent officer, so there is no violation of the rules of natural justice. In the same manner in Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. •These are procedural principles. While reasonable measures have been taken to ensure that the information is current and accurate as at October 2019, the Health Promotion Agency cannot accept any liability for any inaccuracy, omission or deficiency in relation to the information. They seem to be recognised by Article 21 of the Constitution of India in a way which says, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”. If some sort of legal help may be provided to the employee, the balance which is tilted in favour of the management, may tilt partially towards the delinquent. Anil K Bansal describes the rules of natural justice as a hedge serving against blatant discrimination of the rights of individuals. Three common law rules are generally referred to in relation to natural justice or procedural fairness. Rules of natural justice serve as hedge against any blatant discrimination against rights of individuals. 2. •Principles of natural justice are firmly grounded in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Their contravention cannot be presumed, unless it can be shown that injustice has actually been done. In the past, there were only two rules forming the rules of natural justice; with the course of time, many more subsidiary rules came up to be added to them. Evidence (arguments, allegations, documents, photos, etc) presented by one party must be disclosed to the other party, who may then subject it to scrutiny.