TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1982 Regulations reads as follows:- 17. Appeals : (i) An officer employee may 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. The appeal shall lie to the Appellate Authority. (ii) An appeal shall be preferred within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The appeal shall be addressed to the Appellate Authority and submitted to the authority whose order is appealed against. The authority whose order is appealed against shall forward the appeal together with its comments and the records of the case to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall consider whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders. The Appellate Authority may pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case..... 10. The High Court has taken a view that regulation 17 of the 1982 Regulations impliedly requires th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal. We wish to emphasize that reasoned decisions by tribunals, such as the Railway Board in the present case, will promote public confidence in the administrative process. An objective consideration is possible only if the delinquent servant is heard and given a chance to satisfy the authority regarding the final orders that may be passed on his appeal. Considerations of fair play and justice also require that such a personal hearing should be given. 26. In the result, the appeal must succeed and is allowed. The judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated August 16, 1983 and that of the Division Bench dismissing the letters patent appeal filed by the appellant in limine by its order dated February 15, 1984 are both set aside, so also the impugned order of the Railway Board dated March 11, 1972. We direct the Railway Board to hear and dispose of the appeal after affording a personal hearing to the appellant on merits by a reasoned order in conformity with the requirements of Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, not later than four months from today. In our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons are not pertinent to the facts of this case. 13. In Union of India and Anr. v. Jesus Sales Corporation(1996) 4 SCC 69, this Court was concerned with an appeal that was filed against the judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court holding that an oral hearing has to be given by appellate authority before taking a decision under 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4-M of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Court noticed Section 4-M of that Act and in paragraph 3 at page 73 of the Report framed the question as to whether the requirement of hearing to the appellants has to be read as an implicit condition while construing the scope of 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4-M. This Court held (at pages 74-75) as under : 5. The High Court has primarily considered the question as to whether denying an opportunity to the appellant to be heard before his prayer to dispense with the deposit of the penalty is rejected, violates and contravenes the principles of natural justice. In that connection, several judgments of this Court have been referred to. It need not be pointed out that under different situations and conditions the requirement of complia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal. In this background, it can be said that normal rule is that before filing the appeal or before the appeal is heard, the person concerned should deposit the amount which he has been directed to deposit as a tax or penalty. The non-deposit of such amount itself is an exception which has been incorporated in different statutes including the one with which we are concerned. Second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4-M says in clear and unambiguous words that an appeal against an order imposing a penalty shall not be entertained unless the amount of the penalty has been deposited by the appellant. Thereafter the third proviso vests a discretion in such appellate authority to dispense with such deposit unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may impose in its discretion taking into consideration the undue hardship which it is likely to cause to the appellant. As such it can be said that the statutory requirement is that before an appeal is entertained, the amount of penalty has to be deposited by the appellant; an order dispensing with such deposit shall amount to an exception to the said requirement of deposit. In this background, it is difficult to hold that if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to hold an inquiry into the charges against the delinquent employee is required to be furnished to the employee to enable him to make proper representation to the disciplinary authority before such authority arrives at its own finding with regard to guilt or otherwise of the employee and the punishment, if any, to be awarded to him. While dealing with this question and its diverse facets, the Court 6 exhaustively considered the principles of natural justice in the context of furnishing the report of the inquiry officer/authority to the delinquent employee. B. Karunakar6 does not deal with the question of necessity of affording a personal hearing to a delinquent by the appellate authority. 17. Mr. K.N. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the appellants cited a Single Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Y. Malleswara Rao v. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Hyderabad Ors. 2006 LAB. I.C. 1384. In that case the delinquent was visited with the penalty of removal from service. The concerned delinquent preferred appeal before the appellate authority and one of the contentions raised before the High Court was that the appellate authority failed to afford a personal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority whose order is appealed against is required to forward the appeal together with its comments and also the record of the case to the appellate authority. The appellate authority then proceeds with the consideration of the appeal and considers whether the findings are justified; whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and passes appropriate order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority that imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The appeal provision in regulation 17 of the 1982 Regulations does not expressly provide for personal hearing to the appellant. Is the right of personal hearing to the appellant implicit in the provision? We think not. In our considered view, in the absence of personal hearing to the appellant, it cannot be said that the very right of appeal is defeated. One situation is, however, different. Where the appellate authority proposes to enhance the penalty, obviously, the appellate authority must issue notice to the delinquent asking him to show cause why penalty that has been awarded to him must not be enha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaking order. The order does not suffer from the vice of non- application of mind. The appellate authority has addressed the points raised in the appeal and critical to the decision, albeit briefly. It is true that the 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. Brief reasons which indicate due application of mind in decision making process may suffice. Each ground raised in the appeal has been dealt with briefly as would be apparent from the following consideration of the matter by the appellate authority: The contention of the appellant that no departmental action can be taken against him during pendency of criminal proceedings before the Court is not tenable; as departmental enquiry is independent of criminal proceedings and as such there is no bar to pass the order of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority during the pendency of criminal proceedings. The appellant has alleged that Inquiring Authority has erred in holding the imputation 2 3 under Article of Charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lications thereof. After carefully analyzing the evidence adduced during the enquiry, I find that the article of charge no. 3 against the appellant is rightly held proved by Disciplinary Authority. I therefore, do not find any merit/force in the allegations of the appellant. The Appellant has contended that common seal on all documents had been affixed and all the documents are valid. On careful perusal of documents ME-23/1/2 and after evaluating evidence of PW-1 during regular hearing held on 20-9-2003, I observe that article of charge no. 4 against the appellant in respect of releasing credit facilities in the account of M/s. Dunroll Industries Ltd. without complying with terms of sanction is rightly held proved by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence I do not find any force/merit in contention of the appellant that article of charge no. 4 has been wrongly upheld by the Inquiring Authority. The appellant has also referred to some pending enquiry proceedings against him in respect of charge sheet dated 12-8-2003 in the matter of Bankarpur Cold Storage and has contended that it is against principles of natural justice to take into account past service record without valid legal gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
