Natural justice in disciplinary proceedings prevails where a fair hearing is denied, despite the availability of an alternate remedy.

Disciplinary proceedings were vitiated because the member was denied a fair hearing: the committee proceeded ex parte after refusing an adjournment sought on medical grounds, despite the rules requiring compliance with natural justice and contemplating at least one adjournment before proceeding in absence. The earlier refusal of an adjournment did not justify rejection of the later request, and the compressed single hearing did not give an effective opportunity to meet the material or evidence. The availability of an appellate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where denial of fair hearing was established, so writ interference was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings violated the principles of natural justice by denying the respondent a fair hearing, and whether the existence of an alternate appellate remedy justified refusal of writ interference.

Analysis: The disciplinary rules required the Disciplinary Committee to act in accordance with natural justice and contemplated at least one adjournment before proceeding in the member's absence. The hearing was concluded ex parte after the request for adjournment on medical grounds was declined, and the proceeding was compressed into a single hearing without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity to meet the material or address the evidence. The prior refusal of an adjournment on an earlier date did not justify rejection of the later medical request. Although an appeal under the Act was available, the existence of an alternate remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where denial of fair hearing was established.

Conclusion: The disciplinary action was vitiated for breach of natural justice, and writ interference was justified notwithstanding the alternate remedy.

---