Supreme Court of India
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, H.P.T.C. & ANR.versusK.C. RAHI
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 225
- Decided
- 20 February 2008
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
Holding
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re‑appreciating the tribunal’s factual finding of service; the respondent’s waiver and estoppel preclude a claim of violation of natural justice.
Summary
The respondent, an Inspector in the Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation, was charge‑sheeted and served notice of a departmental inquiry by post and by publication in a newspaper. He chose not to appear, and the inquiry proceeded ex parte, resulting in a finding of guilt and termination of his service. He challenged the termination before the State Administration Tribunal, arguing that the notice was not properly served and that his right to a hearing under the principles of natural justice was violated. The Tribunal held that service by publication was sufficient, that the respondent was aware of the inquiry, and that by deliberately avoiding participation he waived his right to raise a natural‑justice claim, dismissing his application. The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, finding improper service and a breach of natural justice, but the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal’s finding of service was a factual finding beyond the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226, and that the respondent’s waiver and estoppel barred his claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, restored the Tribunal’s order, and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 can re‑appreciate findings of fact recorded by a tribunal.
- Whether service of notice by publication satisfies the requirements of natural justice in a departmental inquiry.
- Whether the respondent’s failure to appear, despite knowledge of the inquiry, amounts to a waiver of the right to be heard.
- Whether the principle of natural justice can be invoked when the respondent was allegedly not properly served.
- Whether ignorance of law can be pleaded as a defence by a law graduate.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Subjects
Article 226natural justicedepartmental inquiryservice of noticeex parte proceedingswaiverestoppelignorance of lawdisciplinary actiontribunal findings of fact
Judgment
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 97
~
•
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, H.P.tC. & ANR. A
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
)
.J
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
BOARD OF ·DIRECTORS, H.P.T.C. & ANR: v. 99
K.C. RAHi
.-I
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
J
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.
D
That the respondent was served with a notice recorded by
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
miscarriage of justice or an error of law on the face of the record E
but not to re-appreciate the evidence recorded by the court of
first instance.
.j' 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 non-
compliance 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.
...
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 226"Sign in to search