Introduction
The Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the order of the concerned Depot Manager after stating that amounts were unlawfully deducted from the salaries of the drivers and conductors employed at the concerned depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation for not following the principles of natural justice, which was duly qualified by observations on the fact that the doctrine of prejudice does not override the principles of natural justice but merely stands as an integral part thereof.
Background
The court heard a petition filed by permanent employees of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, who worked as Drivers and Conductors in a depot. They challenged an office order issued by the Depot Manager in December 2016 to recover certain amounts from their salaries without prior notice or inquiry as prescribed under Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal), Regulations, 1967 (herein after referred to as ‘Regulations, 1967’)
The respondents argued that an Audit inspection revealed significant financial irregularities and discrepancies. And after a detailed inquiry, it was found out that some employees had misused the Muster, causing a loss of ₹5,27,201.71 to the Corporation. As a result, the Regional Manager of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport instructed the Depot Manager to recover the amount in three monthly installments from the petitioners’ salaries.
Key Points
The core issue in this case is whether the impugned recovery orders were preceded by prior notice or an inquiry in accordance with law and whether the principles of natural justice were complied with, before deducting amounts from the petitioners’ salaries. As per regulation 12 of the Regulations, 1967, before imposing any penalty, an employee must be informed in writing, given an opportunity to respond, and have their representation considered.
The respondent corporation failed to demonstrate that it followed these procedures before ordering recovery from the petitioners’ salaries. The corporation merely referred to internal correspondence and departmental proceedings, but did not addressed the issue of whether prior notices were issued to the petitioners or not. And the corporation relied on an undisclosed report to issue the imposed order without furnishing a copy to the petitioners or conducting proper inquiry, which violates the principles of natural justice.
Recent Developments
The principles of Natural Justice must be complied with, is a very well settled law in the case of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262] in which Five Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that no person shall be condemned without being heard (Audi Alteram Partem) and that no one should be a Judge in their own case (Nemo Judex In Causa Sua).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India and others vs Rajesh Agarwal and others [2023(6) SCC 1] by scanning the anatomy of the principles of natural justice lucidly and expressed that, the principles of Natural Justice has a universal application and constitute an important fact of procedural propriety envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Rule of ‘audi alteram partem’ is recognized as being a part of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Recently, in the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Brijesh Kumar & Another, [(2025) SCC OnLine SC 179], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, while deciding the lawsuit instituted by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation in respect of terminating the services of the contractual employees held that principles of natural justice should be complied with.
Conclusion
The judgement from the Honorable Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Corporation authorities without following the procedure mentioned in Regulations, 1967, and the facet of Audi Alteram Partem, which means that no person can be punished by the Court without giving a fair opportunity of being heard, was not followed, thereby, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice and hence, deducting the amounts from the salaries of the petitioners is per-se illegal and liable to be set aside. In essence, the High Court took a strong stance regarding the compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice and held that the doctrine of prejudice cannot supersede the principles of natural justice but it itself operates as an integral part. Simply, upholding that Prejudice is not enough to ignore the principles of Natural Justice.
The Court allowed the plea and the respondents were directed to return the amounts recovered from the salaries of the petitioners within three months.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY ABHINAV VERMA
