Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37812 of 2018 Petitioner :- Principal, Bhartiya Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi,Sri Ashok Khare (Senior Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents- State.
The petitioners have been debarred from carrying out any activities related to the Board by orders dated 24.10.2018 and 30.10.2018. The submission of Sri R.C.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 24.10.2018 and 30.10.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 and 2 respectively has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. The order visits the petitioners with penal consequences.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that there is material in the record on the foot of which the order has been passed.
No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petition pending. With consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
It is well settled that the principles of natural justice are not cast in any strait jacket formula. The requirements of natural justice are adapted to the facts of the case to subserve the ends of justice. In the evolution of the law of natural justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has applied the concept of post decisional hearing in appropriate cases. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, reported at (2015) 8 SCC 519, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the Courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible principles. They cannot be applied in any straight-jacket formula. It all depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the Courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only full-
fledged oral hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and full- fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on."
In view of the facts of the case and position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a post decisional hearing would subserve the interest of justice. A mandamus is issued to the respondent No.1 to execute the following directions:
1. A show cause notice shall be issued to the petitioners providing the details of charges against the petitioners and the adverse material proposed to be relied upon against them;
2. The petitioners will be given an opportunity to submit a response to the show cause notice and tender their defence in regard to the adverse material against them;
3. The respondent No.1 shall thereafter decide the controversy by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law;
4. The exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. The impugned orders dated 24.10.2018 and 30.10.2018 shall abide by the final order passed by the respondent in compliance of this order.
It is clarified that this Court has not interfered with the orders dated 24.10.2018 and 30.10.2018 at this stage.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.11.2018 Ashish Tripathi