Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered an appeal arising from an order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madras which had annulled the appointment of the first respondent in O.A. No.2199/92. The appellant, whose appointment was affected by the Tribunal's order dated June 15, 1993, was not made a party to the proceedings. The first respondent's counsel informed the Court that his client had lost interest in the matter because a fresh cause of action arose following annulment of the first respondent's appointment by proceedings dated December 1, 1995 in R.C. No.727/93. The first respondent was not contesting the appeal. The Court observed that it was undisputed that the appellant was not a party to the impugned order and that without being impleaded, the appointment of Thomas was annulled. The Court held that the Tribunal committed a grave error of law in upsetting the appellant's appointment without hearing him, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order as regards the appellant and allowed the appeal, with no order as to costs. The decision reaffirmed that no adverse order can be passed against a person without affording an opportunity of being heard.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - No specific Act - The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal annulled the appointment of Thomas without impleading the appellant as a party; the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal committed grave error of law in upsetting the appointment when he was not made a party, and set aside the impugned order as regards the appellant. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal committed grave error of law by annulling the appointment of the appellant without impleading him as a party to the proceedings.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order dated June 15, 1993 as regards the appellant. The appeal was allowed. No costs.
Law Points
- An order adversely affecting a person cannot be passed without impleading that person as a party
- violation of audi alteram partem constitutes grave error of law.
Case Details
1996 LawText (SC) (02) 204
K. Ramaswamy, G.B. Pattanaik
1996 SCC (3) 587 : JT 1996 (3) 197 : 1996 SCALE (2)SP73
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal order annulling appointment of first respondent without impleading appellant.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the Tribunal's order dated June 15, 1993 which annulled his appointment.
Filing Reason
The Tribunal annulled the appellant's appointment without making him a party to the proceedings.
Previous Decisions
Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madras passed order dated June 15, 1993 in O.A. No.2199/92 annulling appointment of Thomas; subsequently appointment of first respondent was annulled by proceedings dated December 1, 1995 in R.C. No.727/93.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal committed grave error of law by annulling appointment of appellant without impleading him as party?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant contended that he was not a party to the impugned order and his appointment was annulled without opportunity of being heard.
First respondent's counsel stated that his client lost interest in the matter due to fresh cause of action and was not contesting the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
A court or tribunal cannot annul a person's appointment without impleading that person as a party; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and constitutes grave error of law.
Judgment Excerpts
The Tribunal, therefore, has committed grave error of law in upsetting his appointment when he was not made a party.
The impugned order is set aside as regards the appellant. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Procedural History
Original application O.A. No.2199/92 was filed before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madras. The Tribunal passed order dated June 15, 1993 annulling the appointment of Thomas. The appellant, whose appointment was affected, was not a party to the proceedings. The appellant filed an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court, and leave was granted. During pendency, the first respondent's appointment was annulled by proceedings dated December 1, 1995 in R.C. No.727/93. The first respondent's counsel stated that his client lost interest and was not contesting. The Supreme Court thereafter set aside the impugned order as regards the appellant.
