Natural justice in disciplinary proceedings requires pre-decision hearing, unbiased adjudicators and reasons for a finding of guilt.

A member was entitled to a hearing before the Council recorded the final finding of guilt, because the Council alone had determinative authority and the Disciplinary Committee's report was only material for its consideration; a post-report hearing was therefore required by natural justice, and appeal could not cure the defect. The Council's finding was also vitiated by bias where members of the Disciplinary Committee participated in the final decision, since their prior involvement created a reasonable apprehension of bias in a quasi-judicial process. The Council was further bound to give reasons for its finding of guilt, as the decision carried serious professional consequences and was subject to appellate review.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a member of the Institute was entitled to a hearing before the Council after the Disciplinary Committee submitted its report and before the Council recorded a finding of guilt; (ii) Whether the participation of members of the Disciplinary Committee in the Council meeting vitiated the finding on the ground of bias; (iii) Whether the Council was bound to give reasons for its finding of guilt.

Issue (i): Whether a member of the Institute was entitled to a hearing before the Council after the Disciplinary Committee submitted its report and before the Council recorded a finding of guilt.

Analysis: The statutory scheme placed the determinative power to find guilt in the Council, while the Disciplinary Committee functioned only as an inquiry body whose report formed material for the Council's consideration. Since the Council's finding was the jurisdictional basis for any penalty, and the member had not yet had an opportunity to meet the Committee's conclusions before the decision-making authority, principles of natural justice required a hearing at that stage. The availability of an appeal did not cure the absence of fair hearing at the original stage.

Conclusion: The member was entitled to a hearing before the Council recorded a finding of guilt, and the finding made without such hearing was invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the participation of members of the Disciplinary Committee in the Council meeting vitiated the finding on the ground of bias.

Analysis: The same persons who formed the Disciplinary Committee participated in the Council's consideration of the report, and the Council was the authority required to decide guilt. In a quasi-judicial setting, the test was whether a reasonable person could apprehend bias, not whether actual bias was shown. Participation by those who had already expressed conclusions in the inquiry created a real apprehension that the report would be accepted by the Council, and the statutory scheme did not compel such participation. The principle that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done therefore required their exclusion.

Conclusion: The Council's finding was vitiated by bias because members of the Disciplinary Committee participated in the decision-making process.

Issue (iii): Whether the Council was bound to give reasons for its finding of guilt.

Analysis: The Council's determination was the first and operative finding on guilt, with serious civil and professional consequences and a statutory appeal lying from that finding. Effective appellate review and fairness required that the member be told the basis of the decision. A bare conclusion without reasons would not satisfy the duty attached to such quasi-judicial adjudication.

Conclusion: The Council was bound to state reasons for its finding of guilt.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary findings and consequent penalties could not stand because the members concerned were denied a fair hearing before the Council, and the process was also tainted by participation of decision-makers who had earlier taken part in the inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute entrusts the final finding of misconduct to a governing body, natural justice requires a hearing before that body records guilt, and members who have participated in the prior inquiry are ordinarily disqualified from taking part in the final decision if their presence gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

---