In a battle between a mighty lion and a weak lamb, should Courts put those weak to sword for not having demonstrated ‘prejudice’ when a brazen violation of law declared by a Constitution Bench is brought to its notice? Why should those mighty not be made answerable as to why an enquiry report has not been furnished? You are entitled to demand, Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunaka, (1993) 4 SCC 727 be followed.

We regret, reliance placed in some English decisions on whether ‘opportunity would have served any purpose’, may not be appropriate for acceptance in our service jurisprudence. In our opinion, whenever an enquiry report has not been furnished, Tribunal/Court should require justification for non-furnishing of such report. This is a course which is seldom followed. If no valid explanation is proffered and a Tribunal/Court suspects unfair motives (report has not been furnished as part of a strategic ploy or to advance an unholy cause or prompted by extraneous reasons) or carelessness, without much ado and without insisting for ‘prejudice’ to be demonstrated, order of punishment should be set aside. No one should be permitted to steal a march and gain any benefit by violating law.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh, [Civil Appeal No. 14724 of 2024].

_____

S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 SCC 379 is a landmark decision of this Court, delineating contours of Principles of Natural Justice, more particularly right to be heard before one is condemned. S.L. Kapoor came to be noticed in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 and met with an unconditional approval. It has recently been held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891, trio of Constitution Bench decisions in Olga Tellis, Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 and A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 form the bedrock of Natural Justice Principles being regarded as part of Article 14 and, thereby, obviating the need to demonstrate ‘prejudice’ if a challenge were thrown on ground of violation of Article 14.

– Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta, K. Prabhakar Hegde v. Bank of Baroda, [Civil Appeal No. 6599 of 2025] decided on 19.08.2025.