JUDGMENT - Dr. B.P. SARAF, J.:---By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the High Court dated 12th February, 1996 in Administration Appeal of the petitioner against the order of his dismissal from service passed by the District Judge, Pune.

2.The petitioner, who was working as a junior clerk in the Court of the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune, was dismissed from service after departmental enquiry. The petitioner filed an appeal against the above order to the High Court. The said appeal was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 12th February 1996. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the above order on the ground that no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.

3.We have heard Mr. A.V. Anturkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the impugned order of the High Court is bad on account of failure to grant personal hearing to the petitioner before disposing of the appeal. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that personal hearing is not necessary in such cases. He drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in (State Bank of Patiala v. Mahendra Kumar Singhal)1, 1994 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 463 wherein it was held that the rule of natural justice does not necessarily in all cases confer a right of audience at the appellate stage. We have carefully considered the above decision of the Supreme Court. That was also a case where the departmental appeal against order of dismissal from service was dismissed by the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority was quashed by the High Court on the ground that no personal hearing was given before the appeal was dismissed and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal after hearing the delinquent personally. On appeal against the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed :

"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. ... We, therefore, think that the impugned order is not valid."

The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the present case. In view of the above decision, Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the challenge on the ground of failure to grant a personal hearing before the disposal of the appeal was not tenable. He, however, sought to challenge the order on another ground that the impugned order is not a speaking order.

4.We have carefully considered the above submission. It is clear from the impugned order that even the evidence recorded in the departmental enquiry was perused by the appellate authority before passing the impugned order. The order reads :

"I have perused the evidence recorded in the departmental enquiry and I am satisfied that the order under appeal is justified. Appeal, in the circumstances, is dismissed."

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the appellate authority is a non-speaking order as it does not even say that the memo of appeal was perused by the appellate authority before passing the impugned order. We are not impressed by this submission. It is implicit that the memo of appeal and the impugned order had been perused by the appellate authority, more so, when the order says that even the evidence recorded in the departmental enquiry was perused.

5.Moreover, in this case, the appellate authority has affirmed the original order. In such a case, it is not necessary to give separate reasons. The reasons are contained in the original order. In this connection, reference may be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court in (Maharashtra State Board of S. H.S. Examination v. K.S. Gandhi)2, 1991(2) S.C.C. 716 (at 738) :

" ..... The appellate or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document