Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court reiterated that before passing any stigmatic order for removal of any employee from service, a departmental enquiry was required to be conducted.
The Court held that the petitioner’s termination was based on a misapplication of the policy, as no qualified ST candidate was available, and therefore, no preference could have been applied.
In the administrative action where the decision of authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary.
Respondents submitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was required to be assigned to the aggrieved, before the FIR was filed and registered.
“Natural justice is an important concept in administrative law. It is not possible to define precisely and scientifically the expression Natural Justice. The principle of natural justice or fundamental rules of procedure of administrative action, are neither fixed nor prescribed in any code”
It is for violation of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the FERA that would entail action under Section 56 FERA, but the intervening threshold of issuance of show cause notice/opportunity notice and hearing the notice before passing the decision upon such mandatory application of principles of natural justice alone that the action under Section 56 could, at all, have been initiated.
Section 12(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 obligates the Arbitrator to remain neutral and to disclose to the parties any acts or omissions that are likely to fall foul of the mandate.
The forfeiture of the bail bond without giving the opportunity of hearing to the surety is illegal and derogates principles of natural justice.
When it comes to the curtailment of the liberty of a person, it becomes incumbent for the Court to follow the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity of hearing to the accused
“The opportunity of hearing, which the Officer is statutorily required to give to the person against whom an adverse decision is contemplated, is not an empty formality, and is a well-recognised principle of audi alteram partem, which has rightly been incorporated in Section 75(3) and 75(4) of the CGST Act.”
“Falsification of records is an extremely serious matter. It partakes of crime and is coloured by criminal intent. Where the falsification takes place in connection with treatment of a patient, especially where the patient is dead, the seriousness of the misdemeanor increases manifold.”
Bombay High Court noted that all the petitions in the instant matter complained against the violation of principles of natural justice while following RBI directions.
‘Audi alteram partem application cannot be impliedly excluded under the Master Directions on Frauds.’
The Supreme Court observed that principles of natural justice should be necessarily read into the provisions of the Master Directions on Frauds, to save it from the vice of arbitrariness.
by Vijay K. Tyagi†
In Union of India v. W.N. Chadha,1993 Supp (4) SCC 260, the bench of S. Ratnavel Pandian and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ explained the exclusion of the application of the principle of audi alteram partem in relation to an accused at the stage of investigation.
Calcutta High Court: Md. Nizamuddin, J. disposed of a petition which was filed challenging the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
Gujarat High Court: A.P. Thaker, J. decided over a petition wherein the case of the petitioner was that the properties in question
Uttaranchal High Court: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J., allowed petitions which were filed having the common question of law and facts thus were