Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
STATE BANK OF PATIALA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/01/1994
BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC Supl. (2) 463
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. Heard counsel on both sides. The respondent was
visited with the punishment of dismissal from service. He
filed a departmental appeal which came to be dismissed,
whereupon he moved the High Court by way of a writ petition.
The High Court quashed the order of the appellate authority
on the ground that no personal hearing was given before the
appeal was dismissed. The matter was, therefore, remitted
to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal after
hearing the delinquent personally. It is against the said
order that the present appeal is filed.
3. No rule has been brought to our attention which
requires the appellate authority to grant a personal
hearing. The rule of natural justice does not necessarily
in all cases confer a right of audience at the appellate
stage. That is what this Court observed in F.N. Roy v.
Collector of Customs, Calcutta’. We, therefore, think that
the impugned order is not valid. Our attention was,
however, drawn to the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v.
Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi’ wherein observation
is made in regard to the right of hearing. But that was not
a case of a departmental inquiry, it was one emanating from
Article 324 of the Constitution. In our view, therefore,
those observations are not pertinent to the facts of this
case.
4. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit
the matter back to the High Court for disposal of the writ
petition on the other grounds and contentions raised
therein. Since the matter is fairly old, the High Court may
expedite the same. The appeal is allowed with no order as
to costs.