1. Dismissal from service — Departmental appeal dismissed — High Court quashed order for lack of personal hearing — Appeal against High Court order. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 63
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE A.M. AHMADI AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)
STATE BANK OF PATIALA
Versus
MAHENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL.
Civil Appeal No. 264 of 1994 {Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9627 of 1993}, decided on January 14, 1994
The rule of natural justice does not necessarily confer a right of audience at the appellate stage.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Departmental Appeal - Personal Hearing
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was dismissed from service and filed a departmental appeal, which was dismissed without a personal hearing. The High Court quashed the order and remitted the matter for a personal hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that no rule required the appellate authority to grant a personal hearing, and the rule of natural justice does not necessarily confer a right of audience at the appellate stage.
Issues: The issue was whether the appellate authority was required to grant a personal hearing in a departmental appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rule of natural justice does not always confer a right of audience at the appellate stage, and previous observations on the right of hearing in a different context were not pertinent to the case.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition on other grounds and contentions raised therein. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
service law
-
departmental inquiry
- natural justice (Para 3)
-
departmental inquiry
-
service law
Table of Contents
2. Whether the appellate authority is mandated to provide a personal hearing to the delinquent employee before dismissing a departmental appeal. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Natural justice does not automatically grant a right of audience at the appellate stage unless specifically required by rules. (Para 3 )
4. A personal hearing at the appellate stage is not a mandatory requirement of natural justice unless prescribed by specific rules. (Para 3 )
5. Impugned order set aside — Matter remitted to High Court for disposal on other grounds — Appeal allowed. (Para 4 )
6. Does the principle of natural justice mandate a personal hearing at the appellate stage of a departmental inquiry?
No, the rule of natural justice does not necessarily confer a right of audience at the appellate stage in all cases, unless a specific rule requires the appellate authority to grant such a hearing. (Para 3 )
7. Are legal principles regarding the right of hearing under Article 324 of the Constitution applicable to departmental inquiries?
No, the court held that observations regarding the right of hearing emanating from Article 324 of the Constitution are not pertinent to the facts of a departmental inquiry. (Para 3 )
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 {1957 SCR 1151, 1160}. 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 {(1978) 1 SCC 405, 446: (1978) 2 SCR 272, 316} 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.
For Citation : 1994 Supp (2) SCC 463
