Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Heard.

2. Though in the Writ Appeal several points have been urged, we do not think it necessary to go into all of them in detail, as the appeal can be disposed of on a point of law which is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.

3. Factual position, briefly stated, is as follows:- Appellant is a member of the Railway Protection Force (in short 'the R.P.F.). At the relevant point of time, he was working at Ernakulam South Railway Station.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the charge that he had been indulging in lending money at exorbitant interest to unauthorised vendors in the Railway Station. It was also alleged that by misusing his powers as a member of R.P.F. , he gained illegal gratification from unauthorised hawkers. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer found the appellant to be not guilty. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and held that the appellant was guilty and advised that he did not deserve to be kept in a disciplined force like R.P.F. and direction was given for his removal from service. Aggrieved by this, appellant filed an appeal before the Chief Security Commissioner of the Southern Railway, Appeal was partly allowed and order of removal was modified, and a lesser penalty of reduction in pay by one stage for two years was imposed, and a warning that he should not indulge in any such activity in future was given. Aggrieved by the said order, Original Petition was filed. Learned Single Judge observed that appellant's grievance regarding non-grant of reasonable opportunity of being heard before the first order of penalty was passed was not factually correct, as the disciplinary authority gave detailed reasons and copy of the enquiry report was also served on him. The fact that appellant had been let off with a minor penalty was also taken note of, and the Original Petition was dismissed.

4. According to learned counsel for appellant, no opportunity was granted to appellant by the disciplinary authority before it arrived at its views contrary to what was expressed by the enquiring officer. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of R.154 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (in short 'the R.P.F. rules'), there was no requirement of giving an opportunity to the affected employee before a conclusion is arrived at contrary to the view expressed by the enquiring officer.

5. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it has to be considered whether the principles of natural justice have to be read into R.154 of the R.P.F. Rules. The principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. Natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or Rules spelling out the need to hear the party whose rights and interests are likely to be affected, the requirement to follow the fair procedure before taking a decision must be read into the statute unless the statute provides otherwise. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Rannymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the "Magna Carta". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to "vocate, interrogate and adjudicate". Later in the famous Berkley's case the principle received further affirmation when it was stated that "the laws of God and man give the party an opportunity of making his defence". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works (1914) 143 E.R.414, the principle was thus stated:

"Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. "Adam" says God, "where art thou, has thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thou that 'thou should not eat.' It Since then the principle