CANARA BANK versus V.K. AWASTHY

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 31-03-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
•. 
CANARA BANK 
A 
v. 
V.K. AWASTHY 
MARCH JI,. 2005 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Dismissal for misconduct-Dismissed employee did not specifically plead 
violation of principles of natural justice, while passing of the order of dismissal, C 
in either the Memorandu~. ofApp~a/ or at the time of personal hearing before 
· Appellate authority-He also placed no material to show as to how he was 
· prejudiced-In such circumstances, held, conclusion of the Division Bench of 
High Court that there was violation of natural justice cannot be maintained-
Administrative Law-Natural Justice. 
Punishment-Limited scope of judicial review-Several acts of 
misconduct committed by employee prejudicial to interest of emp/oyer-bank-
1 n such case, held, punishment of dismissal cannot be held to be 
disproportionate warranting interference by Court-Administrative Law--
D 
Administrative action-Principle of "proportionality". 
E 
Administrative Law : 
Natural Justice-Rules of "nemo judex in causa sua" and "audi alteram 
partem "- Administrative order involving "civil consequences" must be 
consistent with the rules of natural justice. 
F 
Respondent-employee in appellant-bank was served with a charge 
sheet. The Inquiry Officer after considering the explanations of · 
respondent-employee held the charges to have been amply proved and 
recommended his dismissal from service, which was accepted by the 
Disciplinary Authority. Appeal filed before the prescribed Appellate G 
Authority was dismissed. Respondent filed Writ Petition, on which Single 
Judge of High Court held that the quantum of punishment i.e. dismissal 
was disproportionate to the misconduct proved, but held that no prejudice 
was caused to the respondent and that there was no violation of principles 
81 
H 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) 3 S.C.R. 
A of natural justice. Both respondent and the appellant-employer filed writ 
appeals. Division Bench of High Court held that the order directing 
respondent's dismissal from service was in violation of the principles of 
natural justice, and that it was passed without proper application of mind. 
It permitted the respondent to make a detailed representation to the 
Disciplinary Authority in respect of the enquiry proceedings and findings, 
B within a stipulated time and directed the Disciplinary Authority to consider 
the same and pass a fresh order. 
In appeal to this Court, it was submitted that in the Memorandum 
of Appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority, no stand was taken 
by the respondent-employee that any prejudice was caused to him; that 
C he was given personal hearing by the Appellate Authority but before him 
also no plea regarding any prejudice was raised; that the Division Bench 
missed these vital factors and hence its view regarding violation of 
principles of natural justice cannot be maintained. It was further submitted 
that in view of the proved misconduct, the punishment imposed cannot 
D be held to be disproportionate, and that in any event, there was hardly 
any scope within the limited scope of judicial review to interfere with the 
quantum of punishment. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD : 1.1. Natural justice is another name for commonsense 
justice. It relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical 
pedantry or logical prevarication and supplies the omissions of a 
formulated law. (88-A-C) 
1.2. The expressions "natural justice" and "legal justice" do not 
. F present a water-tight classification. It is the substance of justice whiCh is 
to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this 
solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. (88-CJ 
1.3. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly 
in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the 
G nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule 
of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a 
given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances 
of that case, the frame-work of the statute under which the enquiry is held. 
(90-H; 91-AI 
H 
1.4. The old distinction between a judicial act and an administrative 
( 
CANARA BANK v. V.K. AWASTHY 
83 
act has withered away. Even an administrative order which involves civil A 
consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. 
1 Expression 'civil consequences' encompasses infra

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.