IMPORTANT POINTS
Requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter that is being dealt with and so forth.
2. It is true that appellate authority must record reasons in support of its order to indicate that it has applied its mind to the grounds raised but it is not the requirement of law that an order of affirmance by the appellate authority must be elaborate and extensive.

Headnote:Service Law-Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 - Regulation 17 - Respondent ‘delinquent’ faced departmental inquiry for acts of omission and commission committed by him while working as Senior Manager-Order of dismissal passed by disciplinary authority -Appeal- Appellate authority rejected delinquent’s request for personal hearing and dismissed his appeal-Writ Petition thereagainst-Order passed by High Court allowing writ petition partly and setting aside order of appellate authority and remitted matter back to it with a direction to pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner-Appeal- The extent of power of an appellate forum and mode and manner of its exercise can always be provided in the provision that creates such right- Appeal provision in regulation 17 of 1982 Regulations not expressly provided for personal hearing to appellant- In the absence of personal hearing to appellant, it could not be said that very right of appeal is defeated-Again appellate authority held that on consideration of inquiry record and facts and circumstances of the case, findings and order passed by disciplinary authority were based on evidence brought on record of inquiry and not founded on past record or any other matter not connected with inquiry as alleged by delinquent in appeal- Consequently, appellate authority concurred with view of disciplinary authority - The order of appellate authority, by no stretch of imagination could be said to suffer from vice of lack of reasons-High Court erred in setting aside order passed by appellate authority–Impugned judgment passed by High Court set aside-Appeal allowed. (Paras 19 to 25)
       Facts of the Case :
        Respondent ‘delinquent’ faced departmental inquiry herein in the instant case for acts of omission and commission committed by him while working as Senior Manager. An Order of Dismissal was passed by disciplinary authority . Appellate authority rejected delinquent’s request for personal hearing and dismissed his appeal. On Writ Petition thereagainst, an Order was passed by High Court allowing writ petition partly and setting aside order of appellate authority and remitting matter back to it with a direction to pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        The extent of power of an appellate forum and mode and manner of its exercise can always be provided in the provision that creates such right. Insofar as provision of appeal in regulation 17 of the 1982 Regulations is concerned, it must be stated that said provision affords to an employee right of appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in regulation 4 or against the order of suspension referred to in regulation 12.However appeal provision in regulation 17 of 1982 Regulations does not expressly provide for personal hearing to appellant. In the absence of personal hearing to appellant, it cannot be said that very right of appeal is defeated.Again appellate authority held that on consideration of inquiry record and facts and circumstances of the case, findings and order passed by disciplinary authority were based on evidence brought on record of inquiry and not founded on past record or any other matter not connected with inquiry as alleged by delinquent in the appeal. Consequently, appellate authority concurred with view of disciplinary authority and found no justification to interfere with penalty awarded by disciplinary authority. The order of appellate authority, by no stretch of imagination could be said to suffer from vice of lack of reasons. High Court erred in setting aside and quashing the order passed by appellate authority and in directing appellate authority to pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner .Impugned judgment passed by High Court was set aside. Appeal was allowed

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J. —

Two questions presented for consideration in this appeal by special leave, at the instance of the appellants—Oriental Bank of Commerce and its General Manager - are: (one) whether in terms of regulation 17 of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 (for short, ‘the 1982 Regulations’), the appellate authority is required to accord personal hearing to the respondent in a departmental appeal; and (two) whether the order dated June 4, 2004 passed by the appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the respondent under regulation 17 suffers from infirmity for want of reasons.

2. The brief facts leading to the above questions are these : the respondent—R.K. Uppal (hereinafter referred to as ‘delinquent’) faced departmental inquiry under regulation 6 of the 1982 Regulations for acts of omission and commission committed by him while working as Senior Manager/Incumbent In-charge at 19-D, Chandigarh Branch. The article of charges served on the delinquent contained four charges, namely : (I) between the period September 14, 1999 to December 20, 1999, while recommending sanction of credit facilities and further enhancements in the account of M/s. Dunroll Industries Limited, the delinquent failed to ensure that the proposal has been properly appraised/processed and all the relevant information has been recorded in the process note; (II) the delinquent recommended release of working capital facilities aggregating to Rs. 64 lac in the account of M/s. Dunroll Industries Limited for the unit located at Sikandarabad (UP) at a distance of approximately 300 k.m. from the branch although the monitoring of unit at such a distant place was not possible; (III) the delinquent recommended enhancement of Rs. 175 lac in the Bank Guarantee limit on November 17, 2000 in the account of M/s. Dunroll Industries Limited without ensuring satisfactory conduct of the account and without going into the details of the transactions and implications thereof and (IV) the delinquent released credit facilities in the account of M/s. Dunroll Industries Limited without complying with the terms of sanction.

3. On March 17, 2003, Shri M.K. Ghosh, Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, was appointed inquiring authority to inquire into the above charges levelled against the delinquent.

4. The delinquent submitted his reply and denied the charges. The inquiring authority after recording the evidence submitted its report on November 11, 2003. Charge I and Charge II were held to be partly proved while Charge III and Charge IV were held to be proved.

5. The findings and report of the inquiring authority were sent to the delinquent who in response submitted his representation on December 15, 2003. The disciplinary authority concurred with the findings of the inquiring authority and keeping in view the seriousness of charges and gravity of the proved conduct, it imposed the penalty of dismissal vide order dated February 14, 2004.

6. The delinquent preferred appeal under regulation 17 of the 1982 Regulations assailing his dismissal order on diverse grounds and also requested for grant of personal hearing. The appellate authority rejected the delinquent’s request for personal hearing and dismissed his appeal vide its order dated June 4, 2004.

7. The delinquent challenged the order of penalty dated February 14, 2004 and also the order of the appellate authority before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Division Bench of that Court vide its order dated January 23, 2006 allowed the delinquent’s writ petition partly and set aside the order of the appellate authority and remitted the matter back to it with a direction to pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is this order which is impugned in the present appeal.

8. We have heard Mr. K.N. Bhatt, senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ram Lal Roy, counsel for the respondent.

Re :

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 768

2011 (5) Supreme 490SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.Oriental Bank of Commerce & Anr. — AppellantsversusR.K. Uppal — RespondentCivil Appeal No. 128 of 2007Decided on : 11-8-2011

Cases Referred (6)

2011 (5) Supreme 490
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Oriental Bank of Commerce & Anr. — Appellants
versus
R.K. Uppal — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2007
Decided on : 11-8-2011