2011 (8) TMI 1059 - SC - Indian Laws

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? 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?

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the appellate authority is required to accord personal hearing to the respondent in a departmental appeal under Regulation 17 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982.
2. Whether the appellate authority's order dated June 4, 2004, suffers from infirmity for want of reasons.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Personal Hearing in Departmental Appeal:

The primary question was whether Regulation 17 of the 1982 Regulations mandates a personal hearing for the appellant in a departmental appeal. The High Court had interpreted that a personal hearing is impliedly required, relying on the precedents set by Ram Chander v. Union of India and Ram Niwas Bansal v. State Bank of Patiala. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Ram Chander's case does not establish an absolute requirement for personal hearings in all departmental appeals. The Court also noted that the Full Bench decision in Ram Niwas Bansal was too expansive, as it did not consider the Supreme Court's ruling in State Bank of Patiala v. Mahendra Kumar Singhal, which states that natural justice does not necessarily confer a right to personal hearing at the appellate stage.

The Court further referenced Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corporation, which held that the principles of natural justice do not always necessitate personal hearings. The Court emphasized that the requirements of natural justice depend on the context and specific regulations governing the inquiry. In the absence of explicit provisions for personal hearings in Regulation 17, the Court concluded that personal hearings are not mandatory unless the appellate authority proposes to enhance the penalty, in which case fairness and natural justice require a personal hearing.

2. Sufficiency of Reasons in the Appellate Authority's Order:

The second issue was whether the appellate authority's order dated June 4, 2004, was non-speaking and lacked reasons. The Supreme Court examined the order and found that it addressed the points raised in the appeal, albeit briefly. The Court held that while the appellate authority must record reasons to show application of mind, it is not necessary for the order to be elaborate. The appellate authority had considered the evidence and submissions, and the brief reasons provided were sufficient to indicate due application of mind.

The Court highlighted that the appellate authority had addressed each ground raised by the appellant, such as the independence of departmental inquiry from criminal proceedings, the evidence supporting the charges, and the past service record. The appellate authority's decision to concur with the disciplinary authority's findings and penalty was based on evidence and did not rely on extraneous factors. Therefore, the order did not suffer from the vice of lack of reasons.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in setting aside the appellate authority's order and directing a personal hearing. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, affirming that personal hearings are not inherently required under Regulation 17 unless the penalty is to be enhanced, and that the appellate authority's order was adequately reasoned. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.