Board of Directors, H.P.T.C. & Anr. v. K.C. Raha

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: H.K. Sema
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2008-02-20
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; the order of the Tribunal is restored; the High Court’s order setting aside the Tribunal’s order is reversed; writ petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; Tribunal’s order restored; High Court’s order set aside; writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Board of Directors, H.P.T.C. & Anr.

Respondents

K.C. Raha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• J.S. AttrI

Counsels for Respondents

• Sudha Gupta

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Civil Appeal from the Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation challenging a High Court order that set aside a Tribunal's termination of an employee, K.C. Raha, who was working as an E Inspector. The respondent was charge-sheeted and a notice followed by publication in a newspaper (Tribune) was issued; the employee did not participate in the departmental inquiry, which proceeded ex parte. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report on 22.05.1990 finding the respondent guilty of all charges. The disciplinary authority, after considering the report and applying its mind, terminated the respondent’s services on 16.06.1994. The respondent approached the State Administrative Tribunal, arguing non-compliance with natural justice due to ex parte proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the termination, noting that the respondent was served by publication and was aware of the enquiry from representations dated 09.08.1993 and 19.10.1993, and thus estopped from challenging the process. The High Court reversed, holding that no proper service was effected and thus natural justice was violated. The Supreme Court, however, held that the notice served is a finding of fact by the Tribunal and Article 226 permits interference only for miscarriage of justice or error on the face of the record, not for re-appreciation of evidence. It found the respondent’s knowledge and non-participation to be at his own risk, and restored the Tribunal’s order, dismissing the writ petition. The appeal was allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principle of natural justice
Waiver of the principle of natural justice
Estoppel
Ignorance of law is no excuse

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the delinquent was validly served by notice including publication in the Tribune and that his non-participation in the inquiry was voluntary. The Tribunal’s finding that the delinquent knew of the departmental enquiry and deliberately avoided participation is supported by documents, including the representations dated 19.08.1993 and 19.10.1993. Therefore, there was no violation of natural justice. Article 226 allows interference only for miscarriage of justice or an error on the face of the record, not a re-appreciation of evidence; since the delinquent’s knowledge and non-participation occurred at his own risk, the principle of natural justice is deemed waived. The High Court erred in re-appreciating the facts recorded by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal should be restored, and the High Court’s order set aside.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that service was not proper since notice by publication does not constitute valid service, and that ex parte inquiry violated natural justice. The respondent argues that non-compliance with natural justice prejudiced him, and the High Court correctly quashed the Tribunal’s order. He emphasizes the necessity of proper service and hearing, arguing that the representations do not cure the lack of formal service. The appellant’s reliance on waiver is misplaced absent clear evidence of consent; thus, natural justice demands a reopening or reversal of the inquiry’s conclusions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 97 ~ • A ~ _) .J_ # BOARD OF DIRECTORS, H.P.tC. & ANR. II. ## K.C. RAHi (Civil Appeal No. 4524 of 2006) FEBRUARY 20, 2008 B # **(H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.)** _.J_ _Constitution of India, 1950:_[611] '' • · " _Article 226_ - _Interference with findings of fact recorded by Tribunal_ - _Departmental inquiry- Notice sent to delinquent_ c _followed by publication in newspaper_ - _Delinquent not_ - - _appearing before Inquiry Officer Ex-parte proceedings_ - _Charges found proved Dismissal from service affirmed by Tribunal_ - _Challenged before High Court_ - _Order of Tribunal set aside by High Court holding that no proper service was_ D _effected on delinquent and there was violation of principle of_ - _natural justice HELD: That delinquent was served with a notice is a finding of fact recorded by Tribunal_ - _Therefore,_ - _High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 Power under Article 226 is to interfere only when there is_ E _miscarriage of justice or an error of law on the face of re.cord but not to re-appreciate evidence recorded by court of first instance_ - _The record clearly shows that the delinquent knew that a departmental inquiry was initiated against him yet he chose not to participate in inquiry proceedings at his own risk_ F - _In such event, plea of principle of natural justice is. deemed to have been waived and he is estopped from raising question of non-compliance of principle of natural justice_ - _High Court fell in error in interfering with findings of fact recorded by Tribunal_ - _Notice_ - _Service of_ - _In addition to publication in_ G _newspaper_ - _Principles of natural justice_ - _Proper service of notice._ _Plea_ - _Plea of ignorance of law_ - _HELD: Ignorance of law is no excuse much less by a person who is a law graduate_ 97 H 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R. A _himself._ CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4524 of 2006. From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2004 of B the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No. 460/1999. • J .S. Attri for the Appellants. Sudha Gupta for the Respondent. C The following Order of the Court was delivered : Aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 23.12.2004 setting aside the order of the Tribunal dated 28.06.1999 this appeal is preferred by the Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation. 0 We have heard the parties. Briefly stated the facts are as follows : At the relevant time the respondent was working as E Inspector in Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation. He was charge-sheeted. A notice was sent to him followed by a publication in the Tribune. However, the respondent did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry was proceeded ex pa rte. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on F 22.05.1990 found him guilty of all the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority after perusing the inquiry ,report and after the application of mind terminated the services of the respondent by its order dated 16.06.1994. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed original application G before the State Administration Tribunal. One of the contentions raised before the Tribunal was that the inquiry proceeded ex parte and the order of termination is passed without hearing the respondent and, therefore, the order of termination suffered from the non-compliance of principle of natural justice. This H contention was repelled by the Tribunal after examining the .... 99 BOARD OF ·DIRECTORS, H.P.T.C. & ANR: _v._ K.C. RAHi -I .. • _J_ .j ' ..... inquiry report and documents holding that the respondent was A served with the notice by publication in the Tribune. The Tribunal also held that from the representation dated 09.08. 1993 and 19.10.1993 it would clearly show that the respondent was well aware of the departmental enquiry which was initiated against him, however, he intentionally avoided service of notice ·and did 8 not participate in the enquiry proceedings and, therefore, he was estopped from raising the question of non-compliance 'of the principle of natural justice. On that premise the Tribunal dismissed his original application. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed writ petition before[c ] the Division Bench of the High Court and by the impugned order his writ petition was allowed solely on the grou1Jd that no proper service was effected upon the respondent and, therefore, there was violation of principle of natural justice. That the respondent was served with a notice recorded by[D ] the Tribunal is finding of fact. In our view, therefore, the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the fact recorded by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under Article 226. Power under Article 226 is to interfere only when there is E miscarriage of justice or an error of law on the face of the record but not to re-appreciate the evidence recorded by the court of first instance. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. Its application depends upon the facts and F circumstances of each case. To sustain a complaint of noncompliance of the principle of natural justice, one must establish that he has been prejudiced thereby for non-compliance of pl'inciple of natural justice. In the instant case we have been taken through various[G ] documents and also from representation dated 19.10.1993 filed by the respondent himself it would clearly show that he knew that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him yet he chose not to participate in the enquiry proceedings at his own risk. In such event plea of principle of natural justice is deemed H 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R. A to have been waived and he is estopped from raising the question of non-compliance of principle of natural justice. In the representation submitted by him on 19.10.1993 the subject itself reads "DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRES''. It is stated at the Bar that the respondent is a law graduate, therefore, he cannot take B a plea of ignorance of law. Ignorance of law is of no excuse much less by a person who is a law graduate himself. • For the reasons aforesaid, the High Court fell in error in re-appreciating the facts recorded by the Tribunal. The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. This appeal is allowed. C The order of the Tribunal is restored. The writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court stands dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed. ...