JAGDISH KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions, two Judicial Officers have separately questioned the validity of the separate orders passed against them, by which, the orders exonerating them of all the charges were recalled.

(2.) THE writ petitions were heard together and as common questions are involved it will be convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. S. B Civil writ Petition No. 839 of 1979 Jagdish Kumar Sinha versus THE State of Rajasthan.

(3.) RELYING on Suresh Keshy George vs. University of Kerala (4), it was observed in A. K. Kraipak's case (2) as under: - "what particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the frame-work of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened, the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case. " In Maneka Gandhi's case (3), it was obeserved as follows: "what opportunity may be regarded as reasonable would necessarily depend on the practical necessities of the situation. It may be a sophisticated full-fledged hearing or it may be a hearing which in very brief and minimal: it may be hearing prior to the decision or it may even be post-decisional remedial hearing. The audi-alteram partem rule is sufficienlty flexible to permit modifications and variations to suit the exigencies of myraid kinds of situations which may arise. "