M. SRINIVASAN, C.J.— Since these writ petitions are to be allowed on a very short ground, we are not considering any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There was a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioners in the present cases and the enquiry authority found against them. The disciplinary authority accepted the inquiring officers reports and passed the orders removing the petitioners from service. Appeals were filed by the petitioners. In the memoranda of appeals a request was made for personal hearing.

2. The appellate authority did not give a personal hearing on the ground that there was no provision in the regulations applicable to the employees. The appellate authority considered the matter on the basis of the record and dismissed the appeals upholding the orders passed by the disciplinary authority.

3. It is represented in these cases that the inquiry officers reports were not furnished to the petitioners before the order of the disciplinary authority was passed and they were made available only at the stage of appeals. It is not in dispute that the inquiring authoritys reports were perused by the petitioners and contentions were raised before the appellate authority. No doubt the regulations applicable to the employees, namely, Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977, do not provide for a personal hearing. Regulation No. 17 deals with appeals. But clause (ii) of Regulation No. 17 provides that the Appellate Authority shall consider whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders.

4. On the facts of these cases when the inquiring authoritys reports were not made available to the employees prior to the filing of the appeals, the question is, whether they should have been given an opportunity to be heard personally even though there is no provision in the rules/regulations as such. The Supreme Court has considered the question of personal hearing in Ram Chander v. Union of India and others, (1986) 3 SCC 103. The relevant passages are as follows : "11. After the amendment, the requirement of clause (2) will be satisfied by holding an inquiry in which the government servant has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. But the essential safeguard of showing his innocence at the second stage i.e., after the disciplinary authority has come to a tentative conclusion of guilt upon a perusal of the findings reached by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced, as also against the proposed punishment, has been removed ot the detriment of the delinquent officer. In view of the said amendment of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, Rule 10(5) of the Railway Servants Rules has been substituted to bring it in conformity with clause (2), of Article 311, as amended. Rule 10(5), as substituted, provides as follows : 10(5) If the disciplinary authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charges and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 6 should be imposed on the railway servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the railway servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed : Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing any such penalty on the railway servant.

14. After the majority decision in Tulsi Ram Patel case (1985) 3 SCC 398, it can no longer be disputed that the right to make a representation on the proposed penalty which was to be found in clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution havin