Not providing an opportunity to be heard is a violation of the principles of Natural Justice: Madras High Court

 W.P.No.119810IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS D A T E D : 24.06.2021 C O R A M The Hon ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWrit Petition No.119810 P.Mahendran ... Petitioner Vs.Periyar University Rep. by its Registrar Omalur Main Road Salem 636 011. ... RespondentPRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the Respondent relating to the order in Proceeding No.PU R R5 002717 2010 dated 05.06.2010 and quash the same. For Petitioner : M s.K.Selvaraj For Respondent : Ms.H.Mary Sowmi Rexi for M s. Isaac Chambers1 of 8 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.P.No.119810O R D E RThe Petitioner challenges an order dated 05.06.2010 whereby his services as a Reader in the Department of Education Periyar University were terminated.2. The Petitioner states that he was appointed as a Reader in the Department of Education Periyar University by proceedings dated 24.10.2008. Pursuant thereto he joined duty on 30.10.2008. He further states that he is highly qualified and possessed considerable relevant work experience even as on the date of appointment. However by impugned proceedings dated 05.06.2010 the Petitioner states that his services were terminated on the ground that he had produced a fake experience certificate. The Petitioner has categorically denied that he produced a fake experience certificate in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the writ petition. In addition it is stated that the Petitioner was not provided an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed termination and therefore such termination is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.2 of 8 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.P.No.1198103. While assailing the impugned order learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated the statements in the affidavit and on a demurrer invited the attention of the Court to the annexure to letter dated 18.01.2011 and contended that the said document evidences that the Petitioner had more than five years of teaching experience even if the experience of about 1 1 2 years in the Karnataka State Education Federation College of Educationis excluded. Consequently the learned counsel contends that the impugned order is liable to be quashed not only because the Petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity of hearing but also because the Petitioner satisfies the experience criteria even if the experience certificate from the KSEF College is disregarded.4. On the contrary learned counsel for the Periyar Universitystates that the termination of the Petitioner was based upon the report of the inquiry committee constituted by the University. By drawing reference to the said report learned counsel pointed out that the Principal of the KSEF College stated categorically that the experience certificate from the KSEF College was not issued by the college authorities. She also referred to the letter dated 20.01.2010 from the Principal of the KSEF 3 of 8 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.P.No.119810College wherein it is stated that no employee by the name of Mr.P.Mahendran worked in the KSEF College between July 1998 and June 2001. She also submitted that the Petitioner admitted that he had produced an invalid certificate. For this purpose reference was drawn to the communication dated 18.01.2011 from the Petitioner to various authorities.5. Upon considering the rival contentions the first question that arises for determination is whether the Petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity before issuing the termination order. The admitted position is that the Petitioner was appointed as a Reader on 30.10.2008 and served in that position for about nineteen months before the impugned termination order was issued on 05.06.2010. As such notwithstanding the gravity of the charges against the Petitioner the Petitioner should ordinarily have been provided an opportunity to show cause and make a representation with regard to the allegation of having produced a fake certificate unless it can be inferred definitively that only one conclusion could be reached or that no prejudice would be caused by not providing such opportunity. Therefore this question should be examined next. 4 of 8 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.P.No.1198106. As alluded to above the principles of natural justice are not inflexible and even the requisite standard of compliance varies depending on context. Besides it was held in cases such as S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan4 SCC 379 and K.L.Tripathi v. State Bank of India1 SCC 43 that non compliance with prior notice or reasonable opportunity requirements would not vitiate the action of the authority concerned if in the facts and circumstances only one conclusion is possible or if no prejudice would be caused. To put it differently the standard principles of natural justice would not apply if the facts and circumstances lead to the definitive inference that the provision of an opportunity to show cause would have made no difference. 7. In the case at hand learned counsel for the University relied upon the Petitioner s letter of 18.01.2011 and contended that Petitioner admitted that the certificate from the KSEF College is a fake certificate. Therefore the said contention warrants close scrutiny. Upon examining the relevant letter from the Petitioner I find that the Petitioner has referred to the said certificate as invalid but there is no admission that the said certificate is fake. In addition in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in 5 of 8 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.P.No.119810support of the writ petition the Petitioner has categorically denied that he produced a fake experience certificate. He has also referred to his teaching experience of more than five years even if the KSEF College certificate is disregarded. In such circumstances I am of the view that a definitive inference cannot be drawn that the provision of an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner would be futile and as a corollary a departure from the standard requirements of natural justice is not justified.8. In the wake of the foregoing discussion and analysis the impugned termination order dated 05.06.2010 cannot be sustained and is quashed solely on the ground that a reasonable opportunity was not provided to the Petitioner prior to the issuance of the impugned order. Although the merits have not been examined or determined with any degree of finality the facts and circumstances clearly do not warrant a consequential reinstatement of the Petitioner. Instead the University is directed to conduct a de novo inquiry by providing a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner and issue a reasoned decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioner is 6 of 8 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.P.No.119810directed to extend full co operation for the conclusion of the aforesaid inquiry within the above mentioned period.9. W.P.No.119810 is disposed of on the above terms without any order as to costs. 24.06.2021Index :Yes Internet :Yes rrgTo The Registrar Periyar University Omalur Main Road Salem 636 011. 7 of 8 https: www.mhc.tn.gov.in judis W.P.No.119810 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J. rrg W.P.No.119810 24.06.2021 8 of 8 

Summary: Every person has the right to be heard in any matter against him/her. Getting at a conclusion without giving an opportunity to be heard is a violation of the principles of natural justice.  However, such a principle is flexible if the facts and circumstances lead to the definitive inference that the provision of an opportunity to show cause would have made no difference. This Was Held by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthil Kumar Ramamurthy in P. Mahendran Vs. Periyar University [Writ Petition No.11981 of 2010]. The brief facts of the case are, the petitioner was appointed as a reader at the Periyar University in the year 2008. While joining duty, he had to submit his certificates proving his prior work experience. Amidst these certificates was one certificate claiming that the petitioner worked at one KSEF college for about 1-1/2 years. On 05-06-2010, the college issued an order wherein, authorities terminated his services on the grounds of ‘fake work experience certificate’ and was not provided an opportunity to be heard. Aggrieved by this the petitioner has taken to the Hon’ble High court of Madras to quash such an order by issuing a Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had more than 5 years of experience as prescribed by the college even if the certificate from KSEF college is excluded. Thus, the order to be quashed since the experience criteria has been satisfied even otherwise. The counsel for the respondent submits that the termination was based on the report of the inquiry committee of the university. They also submitted that the petitioner had admitted that he had produced an invalid certificate and the principal of the KSEF college also said that there was no employee by the name of the petitioner who had worked in their college. After listening to the contentions of both the parties, the learned judge analysed whether an opportunity to show cause was necessary to be provided to the petitioner in this particular case. The principles of natural justice are flexible depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. In previous cases, courts have held, “non-compliance with prior notice or reasonable opportunity requirements would not vitiate the action of the authority concerned if, in the facts and circumstances, only one conclusion is possible or if no prejudice would be caused.” In the present case, the university had relied on the statement of the petitioner claiming the certificate was ‘invalid’. However, it was duly observed by the court that the petitioner had not admitted to a ‘fake’ certificate. Additionally, the petitioner had clearly denied in his writ petition any production of a ‘fake’ certificate. Thus, since a definitive inference cannot be drawn, the university is bound to provide an opportunity to be heard. The order of 05-06-2010 is quashed on the grounds of violations of principles of natural justice. click here to red the judgement.