D P MAHAJAN Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It becomes advisable sometimes to look into the law before focusing on the facts, in particular where the facts are a little lengthy, disputed and situationally entwined. It helps to identify as to what part of the controversy is relevant and what part is irrelevant.

(2.) Many a challenge, when the findings of a domestic enquiry are in question, are based on the ground that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is alleged that material gathered behind the back of the employee was used. It is alleged that adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was not given. It is alleged that defence was not given an adequate opportunity to produce evidence. Should the result of the domestic enquiry be set to naught if any such infraction is found? Does law require something more to be found faulty?

(3.) Law on the subject can be traced to the decision in 1874 LR 9 where it was held that a decision given without regard to the principles of natural justice is void. Most judgments, however, trace the origin to the decision of the House of Lords, 1964 AC 40, Ridge vs. Baldwin where Lord Reid said: