The principles of natural justice require that a person facing disciplinary proceedings be given an opportunity to be heard before a final order of punishment is passed.

Tapabrata Chakraborty J.

1. The short point which arises for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether the denial of personal hearing to the charged officer in a proceeding, initiated under the provisions of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules of 2001), has maligned the decision making process towards issuance of the final order of punishment by the disciplinary authority upon disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer.

2. The said issue needs to be decided in the backdrop of the facts that initially a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner/respondent through issuance of a charge sheet dated 15th October, 2007. The respondent contested the said proceedings and upon conclusion of enquiry, a report was filed to the effect that the allegations levelled do not stand proved. Thereafter the disciplinary authority issued a disagreement note disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer. The respondent was not given any opportunity to show cause in defence of the ‘not guilty’ finding in his favour returned by the Inquiry Officer. Without granting any such opportunity of personal hearing, a final order of punishment was passed on 16th December, 2009. Challenging the said order of punishment the respondent preferred a writ petition being W.P. 23779 (W) of 2009 which was allowed by an order dated 4th August, 2015 setting aside the disagreement note and the final order of punishment. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred.

3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants argues that in the absence of any provision towards grant of an opportunity of personal hearing under Rule 36(21)(iii) of the said Rules of 2001, the learned Judge ought not to have set aside the disagreement note and the final order of punishment on the ground of denial of personal hearing to the respondent. The respondent submitted a written representation in response to the disagreement note and upon due consideration of the same, in strict consonance with the rules, the final order of punishment was passed and that as such there is no error in the decision making process warranting interference of the Hon’ble Court. Rule 36(21)(iii) only speaks of grant of an opportunity of hearing by way of a written representation or submission to the disagreement note. Such written representation was called for and the respondent duly submitted the same and upon consideration of the same the final order was passed. In the writ petition the said Rule 36(21)(iii) was not challenged and after submitting a representation to the disagreement note, the respondent could not have challenged the final order of punishment on the ground of denial of personal hearing. In support of such argument reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in the case of Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur vs. State Bank of India and another, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 13.

4. He further argues that the disciplinary authority has been conferred the jurisdiction to consider the records of the inquiry and to record its findings on the charges and to remit the case to the inquiring authority for further hearing and even to submit a disagreement note, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing. In exercise of such jurisdiction the disciplinary authority upon recording appropriate reasons had issued the disagreement note and had issued the final order of punishment upon considering the representation filed by the respondent. The competent authority, upon due application of mind over the grievances of the respondent, had passed a reasoned order and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that before rejecting the contention of the respondent, the said authority was mandatorily bound to grant an opportunity of personal hearing. When principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed, it does not in all circumstances mean a personal hearing. In support