Condition precedent and limitations

Condition precedent and limitations 23. There was a time when the courts held that mere violation of principles of Natural Justice was adequate reason for setting aside the entire proceedings. However, the above approach is no more in vogue. One of the questions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director ECIL Vs. Karunakar [AIR 1994 SC 1074, JT 1993 (6) SC 1, (1994) ILLJ 162 SC] was “what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the Inquiry Officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases.” Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed this question through the doctrine of prejudice in the following terms: “Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice.” 24 24. It may be appreciated from the foregoing that although the principles of natural justice are very important in nature, there is no uniform rule regarding their applicability. This has been stated with ample clarity in the following paragraph in the case Oriental Bank of Commerce and Anr. Vs. R.K. Uppal (Decided On: 11.08.2011) [JT2011(9)SC1, 2011 (3), (2011)8SCC695 ] in the following terms: “18. It is now fairly well settled that the requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter that is being dealt with and so forth. In the words of Ramaswami, J. (Union of India and Anr. v. P.K. Roy and Ors. MANU/SC/0049/1967 : AIR 1968 SC 850) the extent and application of the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within the straitjacket of a rigid formula. The application of the doctrine depends upon the nature of jurisdiction conferred on the administrative authority, upon the character of the rights of the persons affected, the scheme and policy of the statute and other relevant circumstances disclosed in the particular case.”