Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, while setting aside orders deducting amounts from the salaries of employees in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation held that the doctrine of prejudice does not replace principles of natural justice but operates as an integral part of the same and the projection of an argument of prejudice would not by itself be a sole ground to brush aside the applicability of principles of natural justice.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed by the petitioner, permanent employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation who were discharging duties as Drivers and Conductors in a Depot. The petitioners, had challenged an office order issued by Depot Manager, whereby, the amounts of recovery were ordered to be made from the respective salaries of the petitioners without any prior notice or without conducting any enquiry in accordance with Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal), Regulations, 1967.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the said report was not disclosed to the petitioners and further the respondents without conducting any enquiry or giving any prior notices straight away issued the recovery proceedings which is by fixing the different amounts, which are per se illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondents argued that due to the large-scale financial irregularities and discrepancies highlighted by the Test Audit Party in its inspection, the members of the Corporation, after conducting a detailed inquiry, concluded in their report that some of the employees misutilised the Muster, due to which the Corporation had to face a loss of Rs. 5,27,201.71. As a result of this, the regional manager directed the Depot Manager to recover the amount in three monthly instalments from the monthly salaries of the petitioners.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the Depot violated the 1967 regulations and also principles of natural justice as the report highlighting the financial irregularities were not disclosed to the petitioners and the Depot on its own perception, without application of any reasonable methodology or yardstick, fixed the liability of payment of total fiscal loss upon the petitioners by fixing the different amounts on its own.
The court referred to the decision in the case of A.K. Kraipak vs Union of India (1969) and Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India (1978) and observed that the facet of Audi Alteram Partem, which means that no person can be condemned or punished by the Court without having a fair opportunity of being heard, was not followed, thereby, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice.
The court rejected the argument that in the absence of prejudice, the principles of natural justice may not be applicable and observed that adjudicatory forums must examine the factual circumstances by applying a test: whether there has been a complete denial of opportunity or a failure to provide reasonable opportunity and a complete denial of opportunity directly constitutes a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. By contrast, where reasonable opportunity is not afforded, the doctrine of prejudice falls within the scope of judicial scrutiny. The court stated that the doctrine of prejudice does not supplant the principles of natural justice but operates as an integral part and thus mere projection of argument of prejudice by itself is not a sole ground to brush aside the applicability of principles of natural justice.
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the plea and the respondents were directed to return the amounts recovered from the salaries of the petitioners within three months.
Case Title: V.S. Rayudu vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep By and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam
Case No.:WRIT PETITION NO: 2873/2017
Advocate for the Applicant: AK Jayaprakash Rao
Advocate for the Respondent: A. Rama Rao
Picture Source :
