Delinquent failing to participate in domestic inquiry cannot subsequently claim violation of natural justice.

The plaintiff (respondent) was an Assistant Manager at the defendant Federation. In 1984, he was suspended and charge-sheeted for alleged financial irregularities in rice sales

A domestic inquiry was initiated; however, the plaintiff did not participate, claiming he was not provided with necessary documents

The inquiry proceeded ex-parte, and the plaintiff was dismissed on 28.10.1985

The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 6994 of 1987 seeking a declaration that the dismissal was void, a request for reinstatement, or alternative damages

The Trial Court held it lacked jurisdiction to order reinstatement but found a violation of natural justice due to non-supply of documents. It awarded the plaintiff damages equivalent to one year's salary

1. Whether a delinquent employee who voluntarily abstains from a domestic inquiry can subsequently claim a violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the Civil Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the CPC, can act as an appellate authority to re-examine the evidence and merits of a domestic inquiry

3. Whether the Trial Court was justified in awarding damages after concluding it lacked jurisdiction to declare the dismissal illegal or order reinstatement

The Court relied on Section 96 and Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the scope of civil suits in employment matters

The Court applied the principle... which dictates that an employee who refuses to participate in disciplinary proceedings without valid reason cannot later complain of a denial of reasonable opportunity or violation of natural justice (Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha (1994) and Ranjan Kumar Mitra v. Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. (1997))

The protections of Article 311 of the Constitution do not apply to cooperative federations that do not constitute "State" under Article 12

The High Court found that the Trial Court's reasoning was contradictory; the Trial Court admitted the Federation was not a "State" instrumentality yet applied constitutional rigorousness to the inquiry process

The High Court observed that the plaintiff failed to show any valid reason for non-participation in the inquiry

Under the "Rule of Law" cited, by boycotting the proceedings, the plaintiff waived his right to challenge the procedure on grounds of natural justice

The High Court criticized the Trial Court for acting as an appellate body by re-evaluating the evidence of each charge, which is beyond the scope of a civil court's review of domestic inquiries

The Court reasoned that once the Trial Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant the primary relief (reinstatement), it could not grant alternative damages based on a flawed finding of "natural justice violation"

The court ruled that the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by sifting through evidence as an appellate court

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court dated 05.09.1997, and dismissed Civil Suit No. 6994 of 1987