{"id":196508,"date":"1977-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977"},"modified":"2017-11-03T06:20:52","modified_gmt":"2017-11-03T00:50:52","slug":"chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977","title":{"rendered":"Chairman, Board Of Mining … vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chairman, Board Of Mining … vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 965, \t\t 1977 SCR (2) 904<\/div>\n
Author: V Krishnaiyer<\/div>\n
Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATION &ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMJEE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/02\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nBENCH:\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\nGUPTA, A.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR  965\t\t  1977 SCR  (2) 904\n 1977 SCC  (2) 256\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1981 SC 873\t (72)\n RF\t    1987 SC 593\t (24)\n\n\nACT:\n\tCoal Mines Regulations--Regulation 26--Interpretation of.\n\t    Rules of natural justice---Concept of reasonably  oppor-\n\ttunity\tcannot\tbe  fitted into a rigid\t mould--Need  for  a\n\tstrict liability---Code for subterranean occupations.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t Under\tregulation 26(1) if, in the opinion of the  Regional\n\tInspector,   a\tperson\tto  whom  an  Overman's,   Sirdar's,\n\tEngine-driver's, Shot-firer's, or Gastesting Certificate has\n\tbeen  granted is incompetent or is guilty of  negligence  or\n\tmisconduct  in the performance of his duties, he may,  after\n\tgiving the person an opportunity to give a written  explana-\n\ttion,  suspend his certificate by an order in  writing.\t U\/r\n\t26(2)  he shall within a week of such suspension report\t the\n\tfact to the Board together with all connected papers includ-\n\ting  the explanation, if any received from the\tperson\tcon-\n\tcerned.\t U\/r 26(3) the Board may, after such inquiry  as  it\n\tthinks fit, either confirm or modify or reduce the period of\n\tsuspension of the certificate, or cancel the certificate.\n\tThe  respondent,  a shot-firer in a colliery,  violated\t the\n\tprovisions  of the Coal Mines Regulations by entrusting\t his\n\trisky,\ttechnical work to an unauthorised person  which\t re-\n\tsulted in an accident  injuring\t one  Bhadu.  The   Regional\n\tInspector u\/r 26(1) gave him an opportunity for an  explana-\n\ttion  in writing and after considering the materials  before\n\thim   forwarded\t the  papers  to  the Chairman of the  Board\n\ttogether with a recommendation for cancellation of the\tcer-\n\ttificate  under\t Regulation 26(3).  The Board  bestowed\t its\n\tjudgment on the materials gathered which included the delin-\n\tquent's\t admission, and cancelled the  shot-firing  certifi-\n\tcate.\tThe High Court allowed the writ\t petition  assailing\n\tthe orders of cancellation of the licence and held: (1)\t The\n\tBoard  had no jurisdiction since the Regional Inspector\t did\n\tnot  suspend the certificate first before reporting (2)\t The\n\tRegional  Inspector  had no power to recommend but  only  to\n\treport and so the Board's order influenced by the  recommen-\n\tdation was bad in law and (iii) the Board should have  given\n\ta  fresh opportunity to be heard before cancellation of\t the\n\tcertificate and its absence violated natural justice,  void-\n\ting the order.\n\tAccepting the Court,\n\t    HELD: (1 ) Law is meant to serve the living and does not\n\tbeat  its abstract wings in the jural void.  Its  functional\n\tfulfilment  as 'social engineering' depends on\tits  scruti-\n\tnized response to situation, subject-matter and the  complex\n\tof  realities  which require ordered  control.\t A  holistic\n\tunderstanding is simple justice to the meaning of all legis-\n\tlations.  Fragmentary grasp of rules can, n misfire or\teven\n\tbackfire, as in this case. [906 H, 907 A]\n\t    (2)\t The judicial key to construction is  the  composite\n\tperception of the daha and the dahi of the provision.  To be\n\tliteral\t in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul  of\n\tthe Regulation. [909 A-B]\n\t   (3) Over-judicialisation can be subversive of the justice\n\tof  the\t law.  To invalidate the Board's order\tbecause\t the\n\tRegional.  Inspector  did not suspend the certificate  is  a\n\tfallacy.  The Board's power is independent and is ignited by\n\t905\n\tthe  report,  which  exists in this case,  of  the  Regional\n\tInspector.  There is an overall duty of oversight vested  in\n\tthe board to enforce observance of rules of safety. [909 D]\n\t    (4)\t To set aside the order on the ground that  the\t Re-\n\tgional\tInspector   had no power to recommend  but  only  to\n\tsuspend\t and report that his recommendation  influenced\t the\n\tBoard's order is to enthrone a processual nicety do dethrone\n\tplain  justice.\t  Suspension, on a.n enquiry,  predicates  a\n\tprior prima-facie finding of guilt and to make that known to\n\tthe Board implicitly conveys a recommendation.\tThe  differ-\n\tence  between  suspension plus\treport\tand   recommendatory\n\treport is little more than between Tweedledum and Tweedledee\n\tRecommendations are not binding but are merely raw materials\n\tfor  consideration.  Where there is no surrender. of  judge-\n\tment  by the Board to the recommending\tRegional  Inspector,\n\tthere is no contravention of the cannons of natural justice.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t[909 E-F, 910D-E]\n\t    (5) Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking\tland\n\tmine, nor a judicial cure-all.\tIf fairness is shown by\t the\n\tdecision-maker\tto  the\t man  proceeded\t against,  the\tform\n\tfeatures  and the fundamentals of such essential  processual\n\tpropriety  being conditioned by the facts and  circumstances\n\tof   each   situation. no breach of natural justice  can  be\n\tcomplained  of.\t  Unnatural expansion  of  natural  justice.\n\twithout reference to the administrative realities and  other\n\tfactors of a given case, can be exasperating.\n\tCourts cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice\n\tas a mere artifact. Nor can the), fit into a rigid mould the\n\tconcept\t of reasonable opportunity. If the totality of\tcir-\n\tcumstances  satisfies the Court that the party visited\twith\n\tgelverse  order has not suffered from denial  of  reasonable\n\topportunity   the  Court will decline to be  punctilious  or\n\tfanatical  as  if the rules of natural justice\twere  sacred\n\tscriptures.  In the instant case, the Board cannot be anath-\n\tematised  as  condemning the man without being\theard.\t The\n\trespondent has, in the\tform of an appeal against the report\n\tof  the\t Regional  Inspector, sent his\texplanation  to\t the\n\tChairman  of the Board.\t He has thus been heard dad  compli-\n\tance  with Regulation 26 in the circumstances  is  complete.\n\t[909G-H, 910 A-G]\n\t    Tereaesai's case [1970] 1 S.C.R  251; Management of\t DTU\n\t[1973] 2 S.C.R. 114: Tandon's case [1974] 4 SCC 374 referred\n\tto.\n\tObservations:  Sensitive occupations demand  stern  juristic\n\tprinciples   to reach at scapegraces, high and low, and\t not\n\tmere  long drawn-out commissions whose verdicts often  prove\n\tdilatory  'shelter' for the men in whom Parliament  his\t en-\n\ttrusted plenary management.  Any sensitive jurisprudence  of\n\tcolliery  management  must make it cardinal to pt  nish\t the\n\tBoard  vicariously  for any major  violations  and  dreadful\n\tdisasters, on macro:considerations of responsibility to\t the\n\tcommunity.   The Board must quit, as a legal pendry, if\t any\n\tdreadful   deviation.  deficiency,  default  or\t  negligence\n\tanywhere  in the mine occurs.  This is a good case  for\t new\n\tprinciples of liability, based on wider rules of  sociologi-\n\tcal  jurisprudence  to tighten up the law  of  omission\t and\n\tcommission at the highest levels.  Responsibility and penal-\n\tty  must be the concomitants of highly-paid power vested  in\n\tthe  top-brass.\t  Any deviance on the part  of\tthese  high-\n\tpowered authorities must be visited with tortious  or\n\tcriminal liabilities. [908 F-H, 907 D-FI\n\t(The Court emphasised the need for evolving a code of strict\n\tliability  calling  to\tutmost care not only  the  crowd  of\n\tworkers\t and others but the few shall care or quit  so\tthat\n\tsubterranean  occupations necessary for the nation are\tmade\n\tas risk-proof as technology and human vigilance permit).\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t   CIVIl, APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil\t Appeal\t No. 2294
\n\t1968.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppeal from the Judgment and Order dated 25-9-1967 of the
\n\tMadhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 595\/66.
\n\tL.N. Sinha, Sol. Genl, B. Datta and  Girish Chandra  for the
\n\tAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t906<\/span><\/p>\n
\tS.K. Gambhir, amicus curiae, for the Respondent.
\n\tThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n\t     KRISHNA IYER, J.–If the jurisprudence of remedies were
\n\tunderstood and applied from the perspective of social  effi-
\n\tcaciousness,   the problem raised in this appeal  would\t not
\n\thave  ended  the  erroneous way it did in  the\tHigh  Court.
\n\tJudges\tmust never forget that\tevery law has a social\tpur-
\n\tpose  and  engineering process\twithout\t appreciating  which
\n\tjustice\t to the law cannot be done.  Here, the\t socio-legal
\n\tsituation we are faced with is a colliery, an explosive,  an
\n\taccident,  luckily  not\t lethal, caused by  violation  of  a
\n\tregulation and consequential cancellation of the certificate
\n\tof the delinquent shot-firer, eventually quashed by the High
\n\tCourt, for processual solecisms, by a writ of certiorari.
\n\t    We\tmay state at the outset that the learned   Solicitor
\n\tGeneral\t agreed\t that  the appellant, the  Board  of  Mining
\n\tExamination,  would  be satisfied if the law,  wrongly\tlaid
\n\tdown by the High Court, were set aside and declared a  right
\n\tand he was not insisting on the formal reversal of the order
\n\taffecting  the respondent (who is unrepresented before\tus).
\n\tWe proceed on that footing.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The few necessary facts may be narrated to bring up\t the
\n\tlegal issue in its real setting.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The respondent was a shot-firer in a colliery and  being
\n\ta risky, technical job, had to possess a certificate for it.
\n\tHe  handed over an explosive to an unskilled hand who  fired
\n\tit,  an\t accident occurred and one Bhadu,  employed  in\t the
\n\tmine, was  injured.  The  Regional Inspector of Mines  imme-
\n\tdiately\t enquired  into\t the  cause  of\t  the  accident\t and
\n\tfound,\ton the respondent’s virtual admission, qualified  by
\n\tsome prevarication, that the shots were fired not by himself
\n\tbut  by a cutter, an unauthorised person for shot-firing  to
\n\twhom  the  respondent  had wrongfully  entrusted  the  work.
\n\tThereby he contravened the relevant Coal Mines\tRegulations.
\n\tThe Regional Inspector gave him an opportunity for  explana-
\n\ttion  and, after considering the materials before him,\tfor-
\n\twarded the papers to the Chairman of the Board together with
\n\ta recommendation for cancellation of  the certificate  under
\n\tReg.  26.  The Board bestowed its judgment on the  materials
\n\tgathered  by  the Regional Inspector at the  enquiry,  which
\n\tincluded  the  delinquent’s  admission,\t and  cancelled\t the
\n\tshot-firing certificate. The said cancellation was shot down
\n\tby  a writ of the Court on the ground of violation  of\tReg.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.
\n\t    Was Regulation 26, in the context and set. tin. g of the
\n\tMines Act, misinterpreted by the High Court at all?  This is
\n\tthe  short  question canvassed before .us.  We\tpermit\tour-
\n\tselves\ta few observations Which serve\tas  perspective-set-
\n\tters.\tLaw is meant to serve the living  and does not\tbeat
\n\tits  abstract  wings in the jural   void.   Its\t  functional
\n\tfulfilment  as social engineering depends or its  sensitized
\n\tresponse  to  situation, subject-matter and the\t complex  of
\n\trealities which\t require
\n\t907<\/span>
\n\tordered control.  A holistic understanding is simple justice
\n\tto   the meaning of all legislations.  Fragmentary grasp  of
\n\trules can misfire or even backfire, as in this case.  It  is
\n\ta  notorious  fact  that collieries–Indian collieries, both
\n\tbefore\tand after  nationalisation-are strategic sources  of
\n\tthe nation’s fuel and, operationally, areas of tragic  human
\n\thazards.  We need coal, we want miners to bring it from\t the
\n\tbowels of the earth.  The dangerous technology is not yet so
\n\tperfect\t in India as to ensure\trisk-free extraction.\tAnd,
\n\tafter many lives have been lost by the neglect of operatives
\n\tor  supervisors\t or supine bosses, follows the\tscenario  of
\n\ttears and torn-down homes, a little monetary compensation, a
\n\tflutter\t in  Parliament,   a   longdrawn-out  Commission,  a
\n\troutine Report about lapses and recipes and the little man’s
\n\tlife-or\t death lot continuing to receive callous  considera-\n<\/p>\n
\ttion\tat    the   hands   of\t  the\t law,\t law-matter,
\n\tlaw-enforcer—this  sombre colliery disaster sequence\tmust
\n\teducate\t and  inform the jurisprudence of  high-risk  opera-
\n\ttions.\t In  short,  the Mines Act  (and  Regulations)\tmust
\n\treceive\t its  judicial construction in\tthe  total  setting,
\n\tteleclogically approached, not fragmentarily dissected.\t The
\n\trelevant  regulation  is  only a tiny inset  in\t the  larger
\n\tjustice of the statute.\n<\/p>\n
\t    The\t Mines Act has a scheme designed to avoid  accidents
\n\tand  ensure safety.  A system of certificates,\tsupervisions
\n\tand  penalties is part of this scheme.\tThe broad  responsi-
\n\tbility for due enforcement of the Act rests on the Board and
\n\tthe relevant regulation casts liabilities on the lesser men.
\n\tAny sensitive jurisprudence of colliery management must make
\n\tit  cardinal to punish the Board vicariously for  any  major
\n\tviolations  and dreadful disasters, on macro  considerations
\n\tof responsibility to the community.  The Board must quit, as
\n\ta  legal  penalty, if any  dreadful  deviation,\t deficiency,
\n\tdefault\t or negligence anywhere in the mine occurs.  In\t the
\n\tpresent case a microbreach is being punished, but when major
\n\tmishaps occur the  top echelons, on account of\tinadequacies
\n\tin  colliery codes, escape and make others  the\t scapegoats.
\n\tAlthough,  in  this ease, only injury, not  death,  has\t oc-
\n\tcurred, there is a good case for new  principles  of liabil-
\n\tity, based on wider rules  of  sociological   jurisprudence,
\n\tto  tighten up the law of omission and commission,  at\t the
\n\thighest\t levels.   Responsibility and penalty  must  be\t the
\n\tconcomitants  of highly-paid power vested in the top-brass.
\n\t    Back  to the pedestrian statement of  facts.   The\t re-
\n\tspondent’s  curious  contention,  accepted  by\tthe  learned
\n\tJudge, is best understood after reading Regulation 26:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t“26.  Suspension  of  an   Overman’s,\tSir-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      dar’s,\t EngineDriver’s,  shot-firer’s,\t  or
\n\t\t      Gas-testing Certificate–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t   (1)\tIf, in the opinion of  the   Regionl
\n\t\t      Inspector,   a  person to whom  an  Overman’s,
\n\t\t      Sirdar’s,\t  Engine-driver’s, Shot-firer’s,  or
\n\t\t      Gas-testing  Certificate has been granted\t  ii
\n\t\t      incompetent  or  is guilty  of  negligence  or
\n\t\t      misconduct  in the performance of his  duties,
\n\t\t      the  Regional Inspector may, after giving\t the
\n\t\t      person an opportunity to give a written expla-
\n\t\t      nation, suspend his certificate by an order in
\n\t\t      writing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t      10–206SC1\/77
\n\t\t      908<\/span>
\n\t\t\t    (2)\t Where the Regional  Inspector\t has
\n\t\t      suspended\t a certificate under  sub-regulation
\n\t\t      (1) he shall within a week    of such  suspen-
\n\t\t      sion  report the fact to the  Board   together
\n\t\t      with all connected papers including the expla-
\n\t\t      nation  if  any\t received  from\t the  person
\n\t\t      concerned.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t    (3) The Board may, after such inquiry as
\n\t\t      it  thinks  fit, either confirm or  modify  or
\n\t\t      reduce the period of suspension of the certif-
\n\t\t      icate, or cancel the certificate.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\tThe  plain purpose of the regulation is to pre-empt  further
\n\tharm by suspending the certificate of the shot-firer ‘if  in
\n\tthe opinion  of\t the Regional Inspector’ he ‘is\t incompetent
\n\tor is guilty of\t negligence or misconduct in the performance
\n\tof  his duties… after giving the person an opportunity  to
\n\tgive a written explanation’.  This  suspension\tis itself  a
\n\tpunishment  liable to confirmation, modification,  reduction
\n\tof the period of suspension or, by way of enhancement,\tcan-
\n\tcellation  of the certificate by the Board.   Before  taking
\n\tsuch action by way of cessation, as it were, the Board\tgets
\n\ta  report   from   the\tRegional Inspector of  the  fact  of
\n\tsuspension and\tmakes ‘such  enquiry as it thinks fit’.\t  In
\n\tthe  present case, the\tBoard  had  an\texplanation  (styled
\n\tan appeal) from the respondent, and also a recommendation by
\n\tthe Regional Inspector for cancellation of the\tcertificate.
\n\tThe  latter had not suspended the delinquent but had  merely
\n\thold  an enquiry, reached the prima facie view of guilt\t and
\n\tand instead of\tsuspension at once, only made a\t recommenda-
\n\ttion to the Board for cancellation.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe  Regional  Inspector has, among his\t statutory   duties,
\n\tthe  supervision of the observance of the safety  rules\t and
\n\tthe  holding of enquiries (see sections 7 & 14).  He has  to
\n\treport\tto the Board on breaches of regulations\t and  condi-
\n\ttions.\t The Board, in its turn, has the over-all charge  of
\n\tthe  safe management of the  mine.  Derelictions and  viola-
\n\ttions  must  reach  its vigilant eye and  be  visited\twith
\n\tprompt action.\tJurisprudentially speaking, there is need to
\n\tcast an obligation on the Board and the higher\tinspectorate
\n\tnot  to be negligent,  indifferent  or\tinsoucient  in\t the
\n\tdischarge   of\tits overall  responsibility  which  includes
\n\tanticipation   of  likely  mishaps  and introduction of\t the
\n\tlatest measures to promote safety for the men working in the
\n\tdark  depths  at the mercy of the wicked mood of  Yama.\t Any
\n\tdeviance on the part of these high-powered authorities\tmust
\n\tbe visited with tortious or criminal liability.\t Such is the
\n\tprice  which high position must pay for the consequences  of
\n\tcalamitous  failures.  Sensitive  occupations  demand  stern
\n\tjuristic principles to\treach at scapegraces, high and\tlow,
\n\tand not mere long-grown-out commissions whose verdicts often
\n\tprove dilatory ‘shelter’ for the-men-in whom Parliament\t has
\n\tentrusted  plenary management.\tWe emphasize this matter  to
\n\tawaken\tthe law-makers to evolve a code of strict  liability
\n\tcalling\t to  utmost care not only the crowd of\tworkers\t and
\n\tothers but the few who shall care or quit so that  subterra-
\n\tnean occupations necessary for the nation are made as  risk-
\n\tproof as technology  and human vigilance permit..\n<\/p>\n
\t909<\/span><\/p>\n
\t       Unfortunately,  the High Court surrendered  to\tnar-
\n\trowness of interpretation of Regulation 26 by accepting\t the
\n\tsubmission of  the respondent.\tTo be literal in meaning  is
\n\tto see the skin\t and  miss the soul of the Regulation.\t The
\n\tjudicial key to construction is the composite perception  of
\n\tthe deha and the dehi of the provision.\t So viewed, Reg.  26
\n\tis easy of comprehension.\n<\/p>\n
\t       The  High Court held that the order  of\tcancellation
\n\twas illegal for a few reasons which strike us as  untenable.
\n\tThe  argument runs thus.  Without first suspending the\tcer-
\n\ttificate, the Regional Inspector cannot report to the  Board
\n\tand  without such a report following upon a  suspension\t the
\n\tlatter cannot take seisin of the matter.  Since\t the Region-
\n\tal  Inspector did not suspend the respondent, the Board\t had
\n\tno  jurisdiction.  Secondly, the Regional Inspector  had  no
\n\tpower  to recommend, but only to report and so\tthe  Board’s
\n\torder,\tinfluenced  by the recommendation, was bad  in\tlaw.
\n\tThirdly, the Board should have given a fresh opportunity  to
\n\tbe  heard  before cancellation of the  certificate  and\t its
\n\tabsence in the present case violated natural justice,  void-
\n\ting the order.\n<\/p>\n
\t      All  the\tthree points serve to warn  the\t courts\t how
\n\tover-judicialisation can be subversive of the justice of the
\n\tlaw.   Now, how can the cancellation order by the  Board  be
\n\tbad for failure to  suspend  the certificate by the Regional
\n\tInspector ?  The Board’s power is independent and is ignited
\n\tby  the\t report of the Regional Inspector.   Such  a  report
\n\texists here.  There is an overall duty of over sight  vested
\n\tin  the Board to enforce observance of rules of safety.\t  To
\n\tinvalidate the Board’s order because the Regional  Inspector
\n\tdid not suspend the certificate is a fallacy.\n<\/p>\n
\t       Now  to\tthe next point. The vice that  vitiates\t the
\n\tBoard’s\t order is stated to be the recommendation  contained
\n\tin  the Regional Inspector’s report.  Had he  suspended\t and
\n\treported,  he would have been in order.\t But suspension,  on
\n\tan enquiry, predicates a prior prima facie finding of  guilt
\n\tand  to\t make that known to the Board  implicity  conveys  a
\n\trecommendation.\t  The  difference  between  suspension\tplus
\n\treport\tand  recommendatory report  is\tlittle\t more\tthan
\n\tbetween\t Tweedledum  and Tweedledee.  And to  set  aside  an
\n\torder on such a ground is to enthrone a processual nicety to
\n\tdethrone plain justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  last violation regarded as a lethal objection  is
\n\tthat  Board did not enquire of the respondent, independently
\n\tof  the one done by the Regional Inspector.  Assuming it  to
\n\tbe   necessary,\t here the respondent has, in the form of  an
\n\tappeal\tagainst the report of the Regional  Inspector,\tsent
\n\this explanation to the Chairman\t of the Board.\tHe has\tthus
\n\tbeen  heard  and  compliance with Reg. 26,  in\tthe  circum-
\n\tstances, is complete.  Natural justice. is no unruly  horse,
\n\tno lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all.\tIf  fairness
\n\tis shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against,
\n\tthe  form, features and the fundamentals of  such  essential
\n\tprocessual  propriety\tbeing conditioned by the  facts\t and
\n\tcircumstances  of   each  situation,  no breach\t of  natural
\n\tjustice can be complained of. ‘Unnatural expansion
\n\t910<\/span>
\n\tof  natural justice, without reference to  the\t administra-
\n\ttive   realities and other factors of a given case, can\t  be
\n\texasperating.  We  can neither be finical nor fanatical\t but
\n\tshould\tbe flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction.   No\t man
\n\tshall  be hit below the belt–that is the conscience of\t the
\n\tmatter.\n<\/p>\n
\t    Shri Gambir, who appeared as amicus curiae\tand   indus-
\n\ttriously helped the Court by citing several decisions  bear-
\n\ting  on\t natural justice, could not convince us to  reach  a
\n\tcontrary conclusion.  It is true that in the context of Art.
\n\t311  of\t the  Constitution this Court  has  interpreted\t the
\n\tquality\t and amplitude of the opportunity to be extended  to
\n\tan  affected public servant.  Certainly we agree  with\t‘the
\n\tprinciples  expounded therein.\tBut then we cannot  look  at
\n\tlaw  in the abstract or natural justice as a mere  artifact.
\n\tNor can we fit into a rigid mould the concept of  reasonable
\n\topportunity.  Shri Gambhir cited before us the decisions  in
\n\tTeredesai(1);\tManagement  of\tDTU(2)\tand  Tandon(3);\t and
\n\tone  or two other rulings.  The ratio therein  hardly  mili-
\n\ttates  against\tthe  realism which  must  inform  reasonable
\n\topportunity’  or  the rule against bias.  If  the  authority
\n\twhich takes the final decision acts mechanically and without
\n\tapplying  its  own mind, the order may be bad,\tbut  if\t the
\n\tdecision-making body, after  fair and independent considera-
\n\ttion, reaches a conclusion which tallies with the  recommen-
\n\tdations of the subordinate authority which  held the prelim-
\n\tinary  enquiry, there is no error in  law.   Recommendations
\n\tare not binding but are merely raw material for\t  considera-
\n\ttion.  Where there is no surrender of judgment by the  Board
\n\tto the recommending Regional Inspector, there is no  contra-
\n\tvention of  the\t canons” of natural justice.  We agree\twith
\n\tShri  Gambhir that the adjudicating agency must indicate  in
\n\tthe  order, at least briefly why it takes  the\tdecision  it
\n\tdoes unless the circumstances are so clear that the conclud-
\n\ting  or\t decretal part of the order speaks for\titself\teven
\n\tregarding the reasons which have led to it.  It is desirable
\n\talso  to   communicate the report of  the  Inquiry  Officer,
\n\tincluding  that part which relates to the recommendation  in
\n\tthe matter of punishment, so that the representation of\t the
\n\tdelinquent may be pointed and meaningful.\n<\/p>\n
\t    These  general observations must be tested on  the\tcon-
\n\tcrete facts of each case and every miniscule violation\tdoes
\n\t,not  spell  illegality. If the\t totality  of  circumstances
\n\tsatisfies  the Court that  the\tparty visited  with  adverse
\n\torder has not suffered from denial of reasonable opportunity
\n\tthe Court will decline to be punctilious or fanatical as  if
\n\tthe rules of natural justice were sacred scriptures.
\n\t    We\tare satisfied that the order of the Board cannot  be
\n\tanathematised as condemning the man without being heard.
\n\t    The appeal, on the point of law, must be allowed but, in
\n\tthe  light  of the concession made, as\tstated\tearlier,  we
\n\tleave  the formal order of the High Court  undisturbed.\t  No
\n\tcosts.\n<\/p>\n
\tS.R.\t\t\t\t    High Court orders  main-\n\ttained.\n\t(1) [1970] 1 S.C.R. 251.\n\t(2) [1973] 2. S.C.R. 114.\n\t(3) [1974] 4 S.C.C. 374.\n\t911<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chairman, Board Of Mining … vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 965, 1977 SCR (2) 904 Author: V Krishnaiyer Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. PETITIONER: CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATION &ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMJEE DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/02\/1977 BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. GUPTA, A.C. CITATION: 1977 AIR 965 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-196508","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChairman, Board Of Mining ... vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chairman, Board Of Mining ... vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1977-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-03T00:50:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chairman, Board Of Mining … vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T00:50:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977\"},\"wordCount\":2544,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977\",\"name\":\"Chairman, Board Of Mining ... vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-03T00:50:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chairman, Board Of Mining … vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chairman, Board Of Mining ... vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chairman, Board Of Mining ... vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-03T00:50:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chairman, Board Of Mining … vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977","datePublished":"1977-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T00:50:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977"},"wordCount":2544,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977","name":"Chairman, Board Of Mining ... vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-03T00:50:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-board-of-mining-vs-ramjee-on-3-february-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chairman, Board Of Mining … vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196508","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=196508"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196508\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196508"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196508"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196508"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}