ivil Appeal No 2294 1968
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 25 9 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No 59566
LN Sinha Sol
Genl B Datta and Girish Chandra for the Appellants
906 SK Gambhir amicus curiae for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J
If the jurisprudence of remedies were understood and applied from the perspective of social effi caciousness the problem raised in this appeal would not have ended the erroneous way it did in the High Court
Judges must never forget that every law has a social pur pose and engineering process without appreciating which justice to the law cannot be done
Here the socio legal situation we are faced with is a colliery an explosive an accident luckily not lethal caused by violation of a regulation and consequential cancellation of the certificate of the delinquent shot firer eventually quashed by the High Court for processual solecisms by a writ of certiorari
We may state at the outset that the learned Solicitor General agreed that the appellant the Board of Mining Examination would be satisfied if the law wrongly laid down by the High Court were set aside and declared a right and he was not insisting on the formal reversal of the order affecting the respondent who is unrepresented before us
We proceed on that footing
The few necessary facts may be narrated to bring up the legal issue in its real setting
The respondent was a shot firer in a colliery and being a risky technical job had to possess a certificate for it
He handed over an explosive to an unskilled hand who fired it an accident occurred and one Bhadu employed in the mine was injured
The Regional Inspector of Mines imme diately enquired into the cause of the accident and found on the respondent s virtual admission qualified by some prevarication that the shots were fired not by himself but by a cutter an unauthorised person for shot firing to whom the respondent had wrongfully entrusted the work
Thereby he contravened the relevant Coal Mines Regulations
The Regional Inspector gave him an opportunity for explana tion and after considering the materials before him for warded the papers to the Chairman of the Board together with a recommendation for cancellation of the certificate under Reg 26
The Board bestowed its judgment on the materials gathered by the Regional Inspector at the enquiry which included the delinquent s admission and cancelled the shot firing certificate
The said cancellation was shot down by a writ of the Court on the ground of violation of Reg 26
Was Regulation 26 in the context and set
g of the Mines Act misinterpreted by the High Court at all This is the short question canvassed before us
We permit our selves a few observations Which serve as perspective set ters
Law is meant to serve the living and does not beat its abstract wings in the jural void
Its functional fulfilment as social engineering depends or its sensitized response to situation subject matter and the complex of realities which require 907 ordered control
A holistic understanding is simple justice to the meaning of all legislations
Fragmentary grasp of rules can misfire or even backfire as in this case
It is a notorious fact that collieries Indian collieries both before and after nationalisation are strategic sources of the nation s fuel and operationally areas of tragic human hazards
We need coal we want miners to bring it from the bowels of the earth
The dangerous technology is not yet so perfect in India as to ensure risk free extraction
And after many lives have been lost by the neglect of operatives or supervisors or supine bosses follows the scenario of tears and torn down homes a little monetary compensation a flutter in Parliament a longdrawn out Commission a routine Report about lapses and recipes and the little man s life or death lot continuing to receive callous considera tion at the hands of the law law matter law enforcer this sombre colliery disaster sequence must educate and inform the jurisprudence of high risk opera tions
In short the Mines Act and Regulations must receive its judicial construction in the total setting teleclogically approached not fragmentarily dissected
The relevant regulation is only a tiny inset in the larger justice of the statute
The Mines Act has a scheme designed to avoid accidents and ensure safety
A system of certificates supervisions and penalties is part of this scheme
The broad responsi bility for due enforcement of the Act rests on the Board and the relevant regulation casts liabilities on the lesser men
Any sensitive jurisprudence of colliery management must make it cardinal to punish the Board vicariously for any major violations and dreadful disasters on macro considerations of responsibility to the community
The Board must quit as a legal penalty if any dreadful deviation deficiency default or negligence anywhere in the mine occurs
In the present case a microbreach is being punished but when major mishaps occur the top echelons on account of inadequacies in colliery codes escape and make others the scapegoats
Although in this ease only injury not death has oc curred there is a good case for new principles of liabil ity based on wider rules of sociological jurisprudence to tighten up the law of omission and commission at the highest levels
Responsibility and penalty must be the concomitants of highly paid power vested in the top brass
Back to the pedestrian statement of facts
The re spondent s curious contention accepted by the learned Judge is best understood after reading Regulation 26 26
Suspension of an Overman s Sir dar s EngineDriver s shot firer s or Gas testing Certificate 1 If in the opinion of the Regionl Inspector a person to whom an Overman s Sirdar s Engine driver s Shot firer s or Gas testing Certificate has been granted ii incompetent or is guilty of negligence or misconduct in the performance of his duties the Regional Inspector may after giving the person an opportunity to give a written expla nation suspend his certificate by an order in writing
10 206SC177 908 2 Where the Regional Inspector has suspended a certificate under sub regulation 1 he shall within a week of such suspen sion report the fact to the Board together with all connected papers including the expla nation if any received from the person concerned
3 The Board may after such inquiry as it thinks fit either confirm or modify or reduce the period of suspension of the certif icate or cancel the certificate
 The plain purpose of the regulation is to pre empt further harm by suspending the certificate of the shot firer if in the opinion of the Regional Inspector  he is incompetent or is guilty of negligence or misconduct in the performance of his duties after giving the person an opportunity to give a written explanation 
This suspension is itself a punishment liable to confirmation modification reduction of the period of suspension or by way of enhancement can cellation of the certificate by the Board
Before taking such action by way of cessation as it were the Board gets a report from the Regional Inspector of the fact of suspension and makes such enquiry as it thinks fit 
In the present case the Board had an explanation styled an appeal from the respondent and also a recommendation by the Regional Inspector for cancellation of the certificate
The latter had not suspended the delinquent but had merely hold an enquiry reached the prima facie view of guilt and and instead of suspension at once only made a recommenda tion to the Board for cancellation
The Regional Inspector has among his statutory duties the supervision of the observance of the safety rules and the holding of enquiries see sections 7  14
He has to report to the Board on breaches of regulations and condi tions
The Board in its turn has the over all charge of the safe management of the mine
Derelictions and viola tions must reach its vigilant eye and be visited with prompt action
Jurisprudentially speaking there is need to cast an obligation on the Board and the higher inspectorate not to be negligent indifferent or insoucient in the discharge of its overall responsibility which includes anticipation of likely mishaps and introduction of the latest measures to promote safety for the men working in the dark depths at the mercy of the wicked mood of Yama
Any deviance on the part of these high powered authorities must be visited with tortious or criminal liability
Such is the price which high position must pay for the consequences of calamitous failures
Sensitive occupations demand stern juristic principles to reach at scapegraces high and low and not mere long grown out commissions whose verdicts often prove dilatory shelter  for the men in whom Parliament has entrusted plenary management
We emphasize this matter to awaken the law makers to evolve a code of strict liability calling to utmost care not only the crowd of workers and others but the few who shall care or quit so that subterra nean occupations necessary for the nation are made as risk proof as technology and human vigilance permit 909 Unfortunately the High Court surrendered to nar rowness of interpretation of Regulation 26 by accepting the submission of the respondent
To be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul of the Regulation
The judicial key to construction is the composite perception of the deha and the dehi of the provision
So viewed Reg 26 is easy of comprehension
The High Court held that the order of cancellation was illegal for a few reasons which strike us as untenable
The argument runs thus
Without first suspending the cer tificate the Regional Inspector cannot report to the Board and without such a report following upon a suspension the latter cannot take seisin of the matter
Since the Region al Inspector did not suspend the respondent the Board had no jurisdiction
Secondly the Regional Inspector had no power to recommend but only to report and so the Board s order influenced by the recommendation was bad in law
Thirdly the Board should have given a fresh opportunity to be heard before cancellation of the certificate and its absence in the present case violated natural justice void ing the order
All the three points serve to warn the courts how over judicialisation can be subversive of the justice of the law
Now how can the cancellation order by the Board be bad for failure to suspend the certificate by the Regional Inspector  The Board s power is independent and is ignited by the report of the Regional Inspector
Such a report exists here
There is an overall duty of over sight vested in the Board to enforce observance of rules of safety
To invalidate the Board s order because the Regional Inspector did not suspend the certificate is a fallacy
Now to the next point
The vice that vitiates the Board s order is stated to be the recommendation contained in the Regional Inspector s report
Had he suspended and reported he would have been in order
But suspension on an enquiry predicates a prior prima facie finding of guilt and to make that known to the Board implicity conveys a recommendation
The difference between suspension plus report and recommendatory report is little more than between Tweedledum and Tweedledee
And to set aside an order on such a ground is to enthrone a processual nicety to dethrone plain justice
The last violation regarded as a lethal objection is that Board did not enquire of the respondent independently of the one done by the Regional Inspector
Assuming it to be necessary here the respondent has in the form of an appeal against the report of the Regional Inspector sent his explanation to the Chairman of the Board
He has thus been heard and compliance with Reg 26 in the circum stances is complete
Natural justice
is no unruly horse no lurking land mine nor a judicial cure all
If fairness is shown by the decision maker to the man proceeded against the form features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation no breach of natural justice can be complained of Unnatural expansion 910 of natural justice without reference to the administra tive realities and other factors of a given case can be exasperating
We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction
No man shall be hit below the belt that is the conscience of the matter
Shri Gambir who appeared as amicus curiae and indus triously helped the Court by citing several decisions bear ing on natural justice could not convince us to reach a contrary conclusion
It is true that in the context of article 311 of the Constitution this Court has interpreted the quality and amplitude of the opportunity to be extended to an affected public servant
Certainly we agree with the principles expounded therein
But then we cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice as a mere artifact
Nor can we fit into a rigid mould the concept of reasonable opportunity
Shri Gambhir cited before us the decisions in Teredesai1 Management of DTU2 and Tandon3 and one or two other rulings
The ratio therein hardly mili tates against the realism which must inform reasonable opportunity  or the rule against bias
If the authority which takes the final decision acts mechanically and without applying its own mind the order may be bad but if the decision making body after fair and independent considera tion reaches a conclusion which tallies with the recommen dations of the subordinate authority which held the prelim inary enquiry there is no error in law
Recommendations are not binding but are merely raw material for considera tion
Where there is no surrender of judgment by the Board to the recommending Regional Inspector there is no contra vention of the canons of natural justice
We agree with Shri Gambhir that the adjudicating agency must indicate in the order at least briefly why it takes the decision it does unless the circumstances are so clear that the conclud ing or decretal part of the order speaks for itself even regarding the reasons which have led to it
It is desirable also to communicate the report of the Inquiry Officer including that part which relates to the recommendation in the matter of punishment so that the representation of the delinquent may be pointed and meaningful
These general observations must be tested on the con crete facts of each case and every miniscule violation does not spell illegality
If the totality of circumstances satisfies the Court that the party visited with adverse order has not suffered from denial of reasonable opportunity the Court will decline to be punctilious or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred scriptures
We are satisfied that the order of the Board cannot be anathematised as condemning the man without being heard
The appeal on the point of law must be allowed but in the light of the concession made as stated earlier we leave the formal order of the High Court undisturbed
No costs
SR High Court orders main tained


Summary:
Under regulation 261 if in the opinion of the Regional Inspector a person to whom an Overman s Sirdar s Engine driver s Shot firer s or Gastesting Certificate has been granted is incompetent or is guilty of negligence or misconduct in the performance of his duties he may after giving the person an opportunity to give a written explana tion suspend his certificate by an order in writing
Ur 262 he shall within a week of such suspension report the fact to the Board together with all connected papers includ ing the explanation if any received from the person con cerned
Ur 263 the Board may after such inquiry as it thinks fit either confirm or modify or reduce the period of suspension of the certificate or cancel the certificate
The respondent a shot firer in a colliery violated the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulations by entrusting his risky technical work to an unauthorised person which re sulted in an accident injuring one Bhadu
The Regional Inspector ur 261 gave him an opportunity for an explana tion in writing and after considering the materials before him forwarded the papers to the Chairman of the Board together with a recommendation for cancellation of the cer tificate under Regulation 263
The Board bestowed its judgment on the materials gathered which included the delin quent s admission and cancelled the shot firing certifi cate
The High Court allowed the writ petition assailing the orders of cancellation of the licence and held 1 The Board had no jurisdiction since the Regional Inspector did not suspend the certificate first before reporting 2 The Regional Inspector had no power to recommend but only to report and so the Board s order influenced by the recommen dation was bad in law and iii the Board should have given a fresh opportunity to be heard before cancellation of the certificate and its absence violated natural justice void ing the order
Accepting the Court HELD 1  Law is meant to serve the living and does not beat its abstract wings in the jural void
Its functional fulfilment as social engineering  depends on its scruti nized response to situation subject matter and the complex of realities which require ordered control
A holistic understanding is simple justice to the meaning of all legis lations
Fragmentary grasp of rules can n misfire or even backfire as in this case
906 H 907 A 2 The judicial key to construction is the composite perception of the daha and the dahi of the provision
To be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul of the Regulation
909 A B 3 Over judicialisation can be subversive of the justice of the law
To invalidate the Board s order because the Regional
Inspector did not suspend the certificate is a fallacy
The Board s power is independent and is ignited by 905 the report which exists in this case of the Regional Inspector
There is an overall duty of oversight vested in the board to enforce observance of rules of safety
909 D 4 To set aside the order on the ground that the Re gional Inspector had no power to recommend but only to suspend and report that his recommendation influenced the Board s order is to enthrone a processual nicety do dethrone plain justice
Suspension on an enquiry predicates a prior prima facie finding of guilt and to make that known to the Board implicitly conveys a recommendation
The differ ence between suspension plus report and recommendatory report is little more than between Tweedledum and Tweedledee Recommendations are not binding but are merely raw materials for consideration
Where there is no surrender
of judge ment by the Board to the recommending Regional Inspector there is no contravention of the cannons of natural justice
909 E F 910D E 5 Natural justice is no unruly horse no lurking land mine nor a judicial cure all
If fairness is shown by the decision maker to the man proceeded against the form features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation
no breach of natural justice can be complained of
Unnatural expansion of natural justice
without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case can be exasperating
Courts cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice as a mere artifact
Nor can the fit into a rigid mould the concept of reasonable opportunity
If the totality of cir cumstances satisfies the Court that the party visited with gelverse order has not suffered from denial of reasonable opportunity the Court will decline to be punctilious or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred scriptures
In the instant case the Board cannot be anath ematised as condemning the man without being heard
The respondent has in the form of an appeal against the report of the Regional Inspector sent his explanation to the Chairman of the Board
He has thus been heard dad compli ance with Regulation 26 in the circumstances is complete
909G H 910 A G Tereaesai s case   Management of DTU  Tandon s case referred to
Observations Sensitive occupations demand stern juristic principles to reach at scapegraces high and low and not mere long drawn out commissions whose verdicts often prove dilatory shelter  for the men in whom Parliament his en trusted plenary management
Any sensitive jurisprudence of colliery management must make it cardinal to pt nish the Board vicariously for any major violations and dreadful disasters on macroconsiderations of responsibility to the community
The Board must quit as a legal pendry if any dreadful deviation
deficiency default or negligence anywhere in the mine occurs
This is a good case for new principles of liability based on wider rules of sociologi cal jurisprudence to tighten up the law of omission and commission at the highest levels
Responsibility and penal ty must be the concomitants of highly paid power vested in the top brass
Any deviance on the part of these high powered authorities must be visited with tortious or criminal liabilities
908 F H 907 D FI The Court emphasised the need for evolving a code of strict liability calling to utmost care not only the crowd of workers and others but the few shall care or quit so that subterranean occupations necessary for the nation are made as risk proof as technology and human vigilance permit