Natural Justice

Historically, 'natural justice' has been used in a way which implies the existence of moral principles of self-evident and unarguable truth

Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules

Being means to an end and not an end in themselves, it is not possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of such rules

But two fundamental maxims of natural justice are pre-eminently necessary to ensure that the law is applied impartially, objectively and fairly

Described in the form of Latin tags these twin principles are, (i) audi alteram partem and (ii) nemo judex in re sua.

In post remand joint inquiry proceedings allegations against the petitioner remained unproved, however, minor penalty was recommended by inquiry officer due to slackness

Competent authority disagreed with such findings at the final order stage and imposed major penalty without prior assigning any reason for such disagreement at the review stage giving opportunity to the petitioner to show cause thereof

Petitioner remained unsuccessful in departmental appeal and appeal before Service Tribunal

Validity

Scenarios where the inquiry is deemed not to have been conducted per the legal framework, the Competent Authority, under Section 13(6) of PEEDA, has the responsibility to remand the inquiry back to the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee

This may involve rectifying identified lapses or procedural formalities, or it may necessitate ordering a de novo inquiry to ensure compliance with legal standards

Such structured and detailed approach is vital in safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring that disciplinary proceedings are conducted with fairness and in adherence to the law

Dissection of the PEEDA, particularly its Section 13, shows that the legislation does not promote a culture of despotic use of authority within disciplinary proceedings, rather in its preference, it seeks to strike a balance between the imperative of safeguarding employee rights and the necessity of maintaining an efficient disciplinary framework within the service

Such objective has been sought to be achieved by instituting a system of accountability rooted in the principles of fairness, sound reasoning and justifiable decision-making

Law envisages that every step undertaken in disciplinary proceedings must align with the foundational principles of natural justice and procedural fairness and any deviation from these principles risks undermining the validity of the final order, thereby calling into question the integrity and legitimacy of the entire disciplinary process

In the absence of clearly articulated grounds or specific reasons within the show-cause notice, the petitioner was positioned precariously and at a significant disadvantage

Such omission transformed the notice into a mere formality, stripped of meaningful content, cultivating an unwholesome culture of authority while inflicting considerable prejudice on the petitioner and leading to substantial injustice

Competent authority in its final order, under Section 13(5) of the PEEDA, tried to fill in the lacuna in the proceedings and provided its reasons based on which it differed with the inquiry report and imposed a major penalty of forfeiture of one-year regular service

Such post-hoc reasoning could not rectify the initial shortcomings

Punishment order drawn under Section 13(5) of the PEEDA was an outcome of excessive authoritative dominance in the disciplinary proceedings

Such overreach undermined the very essence of fair treatment and compromised the petitioner's fundamental rights

Such a disregard for due process and procedural impropriety rendered the entire process flawed, devoid of any legal validity and could not be upheld in a legal framework that protects the right to a fair trial

Civil petition was converted into appeal and allowed and resultantly all impugned orders were set aside, with a direction to start proceedings afresh from the stage when inquiry report was received and order was passed thereon.

In post remand joint inquiry proceedings allegations against the petitioner remained unproved, however, minor penalty was recommended by inquiry officer due to slackness

Competent authority disagreed with such findings at the final order stage and imposed major penalty without prior assigning any reason for such disagreement at the review stage giving opportunity to the petitioner to show cause thereof

Petitioner remained unsuccessful in departmental appeal and appeal before Service Tribunal

Validity

Scenarios where the inquiry is deemed not to have been conducted per the legal framework, the Competent Authority, under Section 13(6) of PEEDA, has the responsibility to remand the inquiry back to the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee

This may involve rectifying identified lapses or procedural formalities, or it may necessitate ordering a de novo inquiry to ensure compliance with legal standards

Such structured and detailed approach is vital in safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring that disciplinary proceedings are conducted with fairness and in adherence to the law

Dissection of the PEEDA, particularly its Section 13, shows that the legislation does not promote a culture of despotic use of authority within disciplinary proceedings, rather in its preference, it seeks to strike a balance between the imperative of safeguarding employee rights and the necessity of maintaining an efficient disciplinary framework within the service

Such objective has been sought to be achieved by instituting a system of accountability rooted in the principles of fairness, sound reasoning and justifiable decision-making

Law envisages that every step undertaken in disciplinary proceedings must align with the foundational principles of natural justice and procedural fairness and any deviation from these principles risks undermining the validity of the final order, thereby calling into question the integrity and legitimacy of the entire disciplinary process

In the absence of clearly articulated grounds or specific reasons within the show-cause notice, the petitioner was positioned precariously and at a significant disadvantage

Such omission transformed the notice into a mere formality, stripped of meaningful content, cultivating an unwholesome culture of authority while inflicting considerable prejudice on the petitioner and leading to substantial injustice

Competent authority in its final order, under Section 13(5) of the PEEDA, tried to fill in the lacuna in the proceedings and provided its reasons based on which it differed with the inquiry report and imposed a major penalty of forfeiture of one-year regular service

Such post-hoc reasoning could not rectify the initial shortcomings

Punishment order drawn under Section 13(5) of the PEEDA was an outcome of excessive authoritative dominance in the disciplinary proceedings

Such overreach undermined the very essence of fair treatment and compromised the petitioner's fundamental rights

Such a disregard for due process and procedural impropriety rendered the entire process flawed, devoid of any legal validity and could not be upheld in a legal framework that protects the right to a fair trial

Civil petition was converted into appeal and allowed and resultantly all impugned orders were set aside, with a direction to start proceedings afresh from the stage when inquiry report was received and order was passed thereon.

Order for blacklisting involved civil consequences and such an order could only be passed after due notice and an adequate opportunity of hearing to person against whom such order was proposed to be passed and requirement of issuance of show-cause notice had to be complied with.

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 did not contain any provision for constitution of a "Personal Hearing Committee"

Proceedings before PEMRA were quasi-judicial in nature and in quasi-judicial proceedings hearing before PEMRA itself was necessary

When no such hearing was provided except through a "Personal Hearing Committee"; then such hearing was not equal to an hearing by the Authority itself

Principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram partem were applicable to judicial as well as to all the quasi- judicial proceedings under Art.10-A of the Constitution

"Personal Hearing Committee" therefore did not fulfill requirement of "hearing before PEMRA".

Bank employee was terminated due to concealment of information against which departmental appeal was filed but same was dismissed

Contention of employee was that no proper inquiry was conducted and he was condemned unheard

Validity

Petitioner employee was appointed on contract basis in the Bank

Such like employees in normal course could not invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Nature of grievance and prayer made by aggrieved person would determine the maintainability of constitutional petition and not his status

Petitioner had been terminated without affording opportunity of hearing

Employee had not assailed his termination with reference to any of the terms and conditions of his contract appointment

Constitutional jurisdiction was invoked on the ground that service of petitioner had been terminated illegally and unlawfully

High Court observed that Employer Bank, being a public sector banking institution was supposed to act fairly and justly and adopt due process of law in the matters with regard to its employees irrespective of their status as 'regular' or 'contract' employees

Employee being a citizen of Pakistan also enjoyed certain legal rights which were protected by the Constitution and violation thereof would extend a right to him to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Employee had rightly invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in circumstances

High Court in constitutional jurisdiction could not determine any dispute arising out of any of the terms and conditions of contract employment

Petitioner employee had brought his case within the ambit of Art.199 of the Constitution

Nobody should be condemned unheard

No notice was issued to the petitioner prior to termination of his service which was in violation of principles of natural justice

Bank had failed to point out the detail of lapses on the part of employee

No material with allegation was confronted to the employee in the present case

Termination of services of employee on the basis of mere information provided by his previous employer through email was not justified

Petitioner being employee of a public sector institution could not be thrown out by issuance of a termination letter without proper hearing

Employer should have adopted due process of law prior to termination of service of employee

Impugned order was silent with regard to information which was allegedly suppressed by the petitioner

Bank had acted in a capricious and fanciful manner to terminate the services of employee

Impugned orders were illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction which were set aside

Bank was directed to reinstate the employee in service with effect from the date of his termination

Intervening period would be treated as leave of kind due

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner impugned rejection of its bid by the procuring authority on ground, inter alia, that petitioner had been declared the lowest bidder, and therefore a vested right accrued to the petitioner

Validity

Mere acceptance of the lowest bid would not constitute a concluded contract, therefore, principle of natural justice would not be attracted in such a case, in absence of any vested right of the petitioner

Bid of petitioner had not been confirmed finally and contract therefore, could not be said to be completed

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Where a statute did not expressly exclude the provision for providing of an opportunity of hearing before taking of a proposed action, then such right of hearing had to be read into such a statute and an action taken in violation of such right (against the principle of audi alteram partem); was liable to be declared as taken without lawful authority.

Every public functionary was supposed to function in good faith, honestly and within the precincts of its power so that persons concerned should be treated in accordance with law as guaranteed by Art. 4 of the Constitution, which included principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and procedural propriety

Any action which was mala fide or colourable was not regarded as action in accordance with law.

Every public functionary was supposed to function in good faith, honestly and within the precincts of its power so that persons concerned should be treated in accordance with law as guaranteed by Art. 4 of the Constitution, which included principles of natural justice, procedural fairness and procedural propriety

Any action which was mala fide or colourable was not regarded as action in accordance with law.

Banking Court must always endeavor to exhaust all possibilities of service on the defendant through first three modes of service while resorting to substitute mode of service through publication so that service through other modes should not totally become redundant and it shall as a last resort, publish the citation in the newspaper, if service could not be effected on the defendant by the first three modes; and such procedure would not only reduce the multiplicity of litigation and delay in disposal of cases but also meet the requirements of natural justice and rights of fair trial under the Constitution.

It was duty of the courts to act fairly and with due regard to the regard to the principles of natural justice, unless specifically exempted

Maxim 'audi alteram partem' extends to all proceedings, which could affect the persons or property or other rights of the parties concerned in dispute

An order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to an affected party, could not be considered a valid order in the eyes of law.

Scope.

Right of hear­ing cannot be denied if substantially an adverse order is being passed.

No one should be condemned unheard.

District Magistrate cancelled Domicile Certificate, without conducting any detailed enquiry or providing right of hearing to

Effect

Cancellation of Domicile Certificate had no legal petitioner without joining the petitioners in the inquiry and without obtaining justification any proof from them about their residence.

No one could be a judge in his own, cause.

Where a person was once duly appointed and confirmed against substantiative capacity, his services could not subsequently be terminated on whatever ground without providing him an opportunity to explain his viewpoint and without giving him show-cause notice.

Rules of natural Justice could be modified by statute.

Where services of a person were terminated in terms of employment either contained in agreement or in regulations framed by employer, there was no violation of principles of natural justice

Where, however, an employee was dismissed from service on ground of misconduct, he would be entitled to be heard.

Allotment of plot in dispute coupled with permission to raise permanent construction thereon, held, could not be cancelled without providing affected person opportunity of being heard and without any cogent reason

Order of reducing allotted area of plot in dispute passed by respondent Authority without providing petitioner opportunity of being heard was struck down by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction as being patently illegal and without jurisdiction.

Petitioner had got title to property in dispute, but Authority later on without prior notice to petitioner proceeded to determine title 'of such property adverse to petitioner-Authority was bound to issue notice to intimate to petitioner flaws that had subsequently been noted by Authority in the title of petitions,

Order passed by Authority without issuance of specific show-cause notice to petitioner that his interests were going to be adversely affected, held, would amount of condemning petitioner unheard and would constitute violation of principles of natural justice.

Provincial recognition certificate, duly issued by Authority to petitioner as Dental Practitioner for period of one year, was withdrawn by Authority before expiry of prescribed period without issuing prior show-cause notice to him

Certificate which had created right and interest in favour of petitioner, held, should not have been taken away without issuing prior show-cause notice and without hearing him

Order of Authority passed in violation of principles of natural justice was declared to be illegal by High Court

As prescribed period of one year had already expired and petitioner had not surrendered certificate, respondent Authority was directed to consider petitioner's application for renewal of certificate and to dispose of same in accordance with law after hearing petitioner.

Petitioner, a subsequent purchaser of property in dispute which originally was transferred to respondent by Settlement Authority through open auction, was not issued notice prior to cancellation of r transfer

Petitioner being lawful purchaser from original transferee, "'.; having vested rights in property and entitled to notice, held, was condemned unheard by the Authority as no notice was issued to him , prior to cancellation of transfer of original transferee since petitioner was to be adversely effected directly by order passed against original transferee

High Court allowing petition declared order of Authority to be nullity and remanded case for fresh decision after notice to all parties.

Change of Tariff for bulk supply of electricity from Tariff C-2 to Tariff B-3, without notice to consumer, held, would be justifiable where previously such consumer was being charged under wrong tariff-Rectification of mistake would not offend against principle of natural justice where same was rectified without notice to beneficiary.

Art. 199 Educational institutions-Natural justice, principles of -Use of unfair means in examination -Authorities responsible for taking disciplinary action, held. were supposed to act on some material spelling out guilt of person before proceeding to condemn and punish him and as minimum requirements of fairness he was to be given reasonable opportunity to make any relevant statement putting forward his case to enable him through such statement, to correct or controvert any relevant statement brought forward to his prejudice. -[Educational institutions-Natural justice, principles of].

Hardship caused by operation of law-Mitigation-Any conclusion about hardship, unfairness, and prejudice caused-Cannot be divorced from merits of case-Mitigation of hardship caused by operation of law as long as such law or rule intra vires-Not within jurisdiction and power of Courts or Tribunals-Nor can justice and equity, hardship and prejudice be inferred by tests extraneous to such law or rules.

Rules of natural justice, held, presumed to be grafted into every law unless expressly barred.

Failing herein substituted service effected but petitioners not turning up to contest case-Petitioners, in circumstances, held, cannot be said to have been condemned unheard. -[Maxim].

Principles of equity, justice and good conscience-Discretion in judicial and quasi judicial to be exercised in accordance with principles of equity, justice and good conscience.

Inquiry not held in accordance with principles of natural justice-Verdict of Inquiry Officer in culminating in dismissal of worker from service, helot, cannot be relied upon

No defect in charge-sheet-Inquiry, held, can be held afresh after stage of issuance of charge-sheet and reply and appellant may be entitled to back wages if not found quilt.

To be read in every statute. -[Maxim]

Laches-Courts always favour attaching finality to decisions given in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings-Appellant knowing issue involved in proceedings and apprised of order holding property as non-trust evacuee property-Held, not entitled to sleep over order as long as wished and reagitate same issue under a different label after two years on ground of no limitation having been prescribed for appeal

Opportunity of hearing-Appellant fully informed about allegations against him and given opportunity to meet them-Appellant personally present before Discipline Committee and later before Jury of Appeal-Statements of both examiners produced before both bodies Appellant, held, could not in circumstances be supposed to have been totally ignorant of allegations made against him-No contravention of rule of natural justice made out in circumstances.

Opportunity to show cause-Appellants not only served as respondent in proceedings culminating in imposition of costs against him but also instructing Advocate-General to appear on his behalf-Advocate-General appearing, making submissions on appellant's behalf but such submissions not satisfying High Court as to bona fides of order made by appellant-Contention that appellant was not given opportunity to explain circumstances leading to passing of order complained against repelled.

Natural justice-Principle of - Not applicable where Legislature creates a Tribunal suffering from some administrative bias-Decision of such Tribunals cannot be challenged by Courts on plea of violation of principles of natural justice-Principles of natural justice-Cannot overrule express provisions of statutes-Constitution of Tribunal in accordance with provisions of relevant statute-Not objectionable on plea of principle of natural justice- Constitution of N: W.F.P. Service Tribunal strictly in accordance with N.W. F. P. Service Tribunals Act, 1974, held, could not be objected to as being against principles of natural justice-N.-W. F. P. Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S. 3 read with Constitution of Pakistan 1973, Art. 212.

Natural Justice Main source of rules of : Moral rules based on relationship between common law and morality as understood by English people with its source in their religion, i.e. Chiristianity-Qur'anic injunctions clealy prohibit reliance on principles and sources of law other than those of Islam where such course not prohibited by Constitution and law.

Opportunity of hearing - Respondent cross-examining witnesses produced against him, himself getting cross-examined, admitting to have written impugned cash memos and when asked whether he had anything else to say stating: "I have already given my statement and have nothing to add or produce"-Each page of inquiry report also signed by respondent

Chairman of employer company after perusing proceedings of domestic inquiry and final report passing order of respondent's dismissal-Too late on respondent's part, held, to speak of violation of principles of natural justice and of not being given opportunity of being heard.-[Cross-examination].

Ss. 20, 23, 57 & 58-Contributions, payment of-Maxim "audi alteram partem"-Natural justice-Neither S. 23 nor S. 57 expressly confers right of hearing-Courts nevertheless inclined to imply right of being heard to person affected on principle of natural justice—Action taken under S. 23 without hearing affected party-illegal.

S. 19-Revision-Natural justice-Some parties not present during hearing of revision application-Settlement revisional authority despite clear directions of High Court not issuing notice or ensuring presence of all persons interested in dispute-Principles of natural justice, held, offended-Order quashed and Settlement Authority directed to proceed in accordance with directions issued earlier.

Natural justice-Opportunity of hearing-Privilege or licence granted by State to its citizen-Cannot betaken away arbitrarily without following principles of natural justice-State granting passport to a citizen-Not competent to cancel or confiscate it Without giving holder of passport an opportunity of hearing-Whether a citizen has a legal right to issuance of passport [Quaere].

Natural justice?Educational institutions?Student allowed by Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education to sit for examination?Student declared successful but result subsequently sought (without show?cause notice) to be cancelled on ground that he hail failed to attend requisite number of lectures?Mere fact of such notice not being prescribed in Rules, held, does not preclude necessity of following principles of natural justice?Action of Board, held, against all canons of justice.

Conclusion of Labour Court must be arrived at after giving opportunity of hearing to party-Worker seeking re-instatement-Court relying on a letter arriving at conclusion that he had resigned, rejecting application without examining petitioner Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, held, violative of principle of natural justice and set aside.

Audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard)-Principle, held, applicable to cases where orders are passed by administrative Tri-burial or authorities affecting rights of citizens regarding property or person.

Audi alteram partem-Principle of hearing person likely to be affected-Orthodox view of inter partes lis held, advanced further and matters now approached from "functional view".

Ordinances designed to deal with entirely different situations and different categories of persons-Ordinance of 1960, held, does not impliedly repeal Ordinance XXXV of 1959.

Rule not confined to proceedings before Courts but extends to all proceedings, by whomsoever held, which may affect rights of a party.

Natural Justice audi alteram partem (no one shall be condemned unheard)-Production capacity of mill assessed without giving it any opportunity of hearing-Assessee, held, was denied his natural right of being heard-Right of hearing in c absence of any provision to contrary-Deemed to be present in every enactment and available even in administrative tribunals

Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), S. 3(4) [as amended by; Finance Act (XI of 1966), S. 4].

Natural Justice Audi alteram partem (no one shall be condemned unheard)-Principle to be read in every statute unless provided to contrary-Order condemning a person unheard Held, a nullity in law and of no legal effect.