Rajiv, a senior manager in a company, liked Sumit, a junior manager, as a suitable match for his daughter. When he proposed this to Sumit, Sumit politely refused as he was in love with his collegue in the same department. After some days there was an inquiry on Sumit for misappropriation of funds. The head the committee was Mr. Rajiv. He issued suspension orders of Sumit without giving him chance to speak or represent his case. Which principle has been violated in the situation given above?

Audi alterem partum

The correct answer is Option (2) → Audi alterem partum

Audi alterem partem means "hear the other side" or "let the other side be heard as well." This legal principle ensures that all parties involved in a dispute have the opportunity to present their case and defend themselves before a decision is made. In this scenario, Sumit was not given a chance to speak or represent his case before being suspended, which clearly violates this principle.

Other Options:

• Damnun Sine Injuria: This principle refers to a situation where damage is suffered, but there is no legal injury. It does not apply here since Sumit’s rights were violated.

• Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium: This means "where there is a right, there is a remedy." While relevant, it does not specifically address the issue of not being heard.

• Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea: This principle states that an act does not make a person guilty unless there is a guilty mind. It is more applicable in criminal law contexts than in administrative or employment matters.