THOMAS MATHEW Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'The one who decides must hear'. This is a sacred rule forming part of principles of natural justice. The aptness of this percept to the present context requires trenchant consideration. The decision in Union of India v. Andrew ( 1996 (1) KLT 133 ) handed down by a Division Bench forming one of us a party anatomised the above concept with some elaborateness. What we are impelled here is to have a closer outlook on it with reference to a facet which we call 'seeming justice'. 'It is a cardinal principle of our judicial system that a case should be decided by the authority hearing the arguments and that a successor cannot decide a case without hearing the argument afresh on the ground that arguments have already been advanced before his predecessor who left the case without deciding it himself, so said by the Division Bench in the Andrew's case (supra)

(2.) Ext. P5 order dated 28/08/1997 passed by the Additional Secretary (Sri. Rajendran) has been challenged by the appellant in the Writ Petition wherefrom the present writ appeal arose. By the said order the Government found that the appellant was personally liable for the loss of Rs. 48,602/- sustained by it and hence it ordered to recover the said sum from the DCRG payable to him, on retirement. The impugned order was passed by the Government in compliance of the direction of this Court in O.P. No. 1500 of 1997 directing to finalise the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant within the period stipulated. The learned single Judge however dismissed the Original Petition and hence the present writ appeal.

(3.) While attacking Ext. P5, the appellant at the outset contends that Ext. P5 order is hit by the rule 'the one who decides must hear'. His case is that he was heard on 21/07/1997 by the Special Secretary to Government Sri. Sajan Peter, but Ext. P5 order was passed by the Additional Secretary Sri. Rajendran. He pointed out that there was no application of the mind by the authority who passed the impugned order. Therefore, the counsel pleaded that the appellant ought to have been heard by Sri. K. Rajendran before Ext. P5 order was passed and that was a requirement in the observance of the principles of natural justice.