Jagat Choudhary S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary v. Union of India

NGT8 May 2026Appeal No. 32/2024

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

Jagat Choudhary S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary vs Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | NGT (2026)

¶29

M/s Krishna Associates	Vs.	Appellant(s)
Union of India & Ors.		Respondent(s)
WITH	Appeal No.30/2024 (CZ) (I.A.No.135/2024)
Pankaj Tiwari	Vs.	Appellant(s)
Union of India & Ors.		Respondent(s)
WITH	Appeal No.31/2024 (CZ) (I.A.No.136/2024)
M/s Faujdar Constructi	ons Pvt. Ltd.	Appellant(s)
Union of India & Ors.	Vs.	Respondent(s)
WITH Jagat Choudhary	Appeal No.32/2024 (CZ) (I.A.No.137/2024) Vs.	Appellant(s)
Union of India & Ors.		Respondent(s)

Appeal No.33/2024 (CZ) (I.A.No.141/2024)
M/s R.B. Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Appellant(s) Vs.
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)

M/s K. K. Gupta Constructions Pvt. Ltd.	Appellant(s)
Vs. Union of India & Ors.	Respondent(s)

¶35

WITH Appeal No.36/2024(CZ) (I.A.No.140/2024)
M/s R.B. Distributors Pvt. Ltd. Vs.	Appellant(s)
Union of India & Ors.	Respondent(s)
With Appeal No.38/2024(CZ)
Madhukar Malviya Vs.	Appellant(s)
Rajasthan Pollution Control Board & Ors.	Respondent(s)
WITH Appeal No.39/2024(CZ)
M/s Sunlight Minerals Vs.	Appellant (s)
Rajasthan Pollution Control Board & Ors.	Respondent(s)
WITH Appeal No.02/2025(CZ) (I.A. No.27/2025)
M/s Jai Girraj Stones	Appellant(s)
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.	Respondent(s)

¶168

“29. We are of the opinion that Mr. Garg is right that the rules of natural justice as we have set out hereinbefore implied an opportunity to the delinquent officer to give evidence in respect of the charges or to deny the charges against him. Secondly, he submitted that even if the rules had no statutory force and even if the party had bound himself by the contract, as he had accepted the Staff Rule, there cannot be any contract with a Statutory Corporation which is violative of the principles of natural justice in matters of domestic enquiry involving termination of service of an employee. We are in agreement with the basic submission of Mr. Garg in this respect, but we find that the relevant rules which we have set out hereinbefore have been complied with even if the rules are read that requirements of natural justice were implied in the said rules or even if such basic principles of natural justice were implied, there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice in respect of the order passed in this case. In respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences against an officer or an employee of Statutory Corporations like the State Bank of India, there must be an investigation into the charges consistent with the requirements of the situation in accordance with the principles of natural justice as far as these were applicable to a particular situation. So whether a particular principle of natural justice has been violated or not has to be judged in the background of the nature of charges, the nature of the investigation conducted in the background of any statutory or relevant rules governing such enquiries. Here the infraction of the natural justice complained of was that he was not given an opportunity to rebut the materials gathered in his absence. As has been observed in On Justice by J.R. Lucas, the principles of natural justice basically, if we may say so, emanate from the actual phrase “audi alteram partem” which was first formulated by St. Augustine (De Duabus Animabus, XIV, 22 J.P. Migne, PL. 42, 110).

¶207

291. It is settled that in cases where individual rights are affected by the decision, an opportunity of being heard and application of mind couched in the form of reasons form part of the jurisprudential doctrine. Such cases need to be distinguished from cases which do not impinge upon individual rights and involve ordinary administrative processes. For, similar standards cannot be deployed to decide both these cases. When petitioners allege illegality on a ground such as absence of reasons in a pure administrative process, they must bear the burden to demonstrate the requirement of reasons in the first place. It is not as if reasons are mandatory in all decisions. What we are dealing with is the opinion of an advisory (administrative) body which is appointed by the same Government which calls for its advice and not to adjudicate upon rights of individuals. Even if we assume that the no objection by an advisory body would have the effect of affecting the objectivity of the final decision, the fact remains that it does not take the final decision. It is meant to invoke its expertise in light of the subject proposal placed before it and advise the Government as regards the feasibility of the proposed development in connection with the existing central vista region. The final decision would be that of the competent authority of the concerned department. Furthermore, what purpose would it serve to entangle an advisory body into rigidity of recording elaborate reasons when its advice is not going to affect any stakeholder whatsoever nor can be made the basis to challenge the final decision of the competent authority. Not being a statutory body, its opinion has no finality attached to it nor could be appealed against to superior forum. Undeniably, in the process of decision-making, the Government may choose to consult as many bodies and agencies as it desires and opinion of every such advisory body cannot be assailed by supplying fictional standards without keeping in view the nature of body and context of advice.

Jagat Choudhary S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary v. Union of India

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Universal Resources through Partner Subash Chand Bansal vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority)

Harun Abdullabhai Mala vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

M/S Charminar Jointings Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

Jagat Choudhary S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary v. Union of India

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Universal Resources through Partner Subash Chand Bansal vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Impact Assessment Authority)

Harun Abdullabhai Mala vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

M/S Charminar Jointings Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

Coram

Miot Hospitals Private Limited vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Tahir Hussain vs State of Rajasthan

Nagar Palika Parishad Balaghat (M.P.) vs State of Madhya Pradesh through the Principal Secretary Urban Administration & Development Department

Om Prakash Yadav vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Kishan Vikash Seva Samiti Mesiya vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Chandrawanshi vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Gajendra Singh Rajpoot vs Union of India Ministry of Enviornment Forest & Climate Change through Regional Director

Rajendra Tiwari vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India

Kantilal Upadhyay & Anrs. vs State of Rajasthan

Sunlight Minerals vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

Madhukar Malviya vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board