In a landmark judgment rich with allegory, the Orissa High Court has underscored the inviolable nature of the principles of natural justice, drawing a parallel to the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. The court quashed a recovery order issued against petitioners, ruling that any order passed without affording a fair hearing is fundamentally flawed and unsustainable in law.
Biblical Allegory and the Sanctity of Hearing
Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad, presiding over the case, made a profound observation to emphasize the necessity of granting a hearing. The court remarked, “Even the God is said to have given an opportunity of hearing to Adam and Eve for consuming the proscribed apple in the Eden Garden, says the Bible.” Elaborating further, Justice Shripad stated that if the divine authority itself provided a chance to be heard, human institutions cannot arrogate to themselves a wisdom greater than that. “That being the position, man cannot be arrogant to himself, the wisdom which even God did not claim,” the judgment read.
The Core of the Legal Dispute
The case revolved around a grievance filed by petitioners against a recovery order. The order for recovery of funds was initiated following the withdrawal of one annual increment from the petitioners. Advocates K K Swain and JR Khuntia, representing the petitioners, argued vehemently that an annual increment holds monetary value and thus constitutes ‘property’ as defined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. This article mandates that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law.
Consequently, the counsel contended that stripping the petitioners of this property without following due process—a fundamental aspect of which is granting a hearing—was illegal. On the opposing side, the state’s counsel, SB Mohanty, argued that issuing a notice in this matter would serve no useful purpose and that the ground of violating natural justice principles should not aid the petitioners.
Court’s Verdict and Directives
The High Court, after hearing both parties and examining the petition papers, found unequivocal merit in the petitioners’ argument. The bench firmly established that an order passed without complying with the principles of natural justice is inherently unsustainable. Rejecting the state’s argument, the court held that the right to a hearing is not a mere formality but a substantive right that upholds fairness in administrative and quasi-judicial actions.
As a remedy, the court issued a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned recovery order. The matter has been remitted back to the District Education Officer (referred to as OP 3 in the order) for fresh consideration. The court directed the officer to re-examine the case “in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders, including the petitioners herein.” All legal contentions from both sides have been kept open for this fresh proceeding.
This judgment reinforces a cornerstone of Indian jurisprudence: the right to be heard (audi alteram partem) is sacrosanct. By invoking a universally recognized narrative, the Orissa High Court has delivered a powerful reminder that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, starting with the basic courtesy of a hearing.
