om:68-cl-2012-jun — In a disciplinary case, the Appellate Authority has to give a personal hearing to the delinquent employee before disposing of his appeal if the delinquent employee asks for a personal hearing after submitting his appeal

In a disciplinary case, the Appellate Authority has to give a personal hearing to the delinquent employee before disposing of his appeal if the delinquent employee asks for a personal hearing after submitting his appeal — This chunk is from a legal decision where an employee appealed against a disciplinary order, seeking a personal hearing before disposal. The court set aside the original appellate order due to denial... — Facts: The Applicant herein was appointed as EDDA on 30-12-1993. On 28-2-2005, the Disciplinary Authority conveyed to him that an enquiry was proposed to be held under Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Appointment) Rules, 2001 (Rule 2001 for short). The enquiry was held and he was imposed with the penalty of removal from service by Order, dated 19-9-2006. He filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority, R-2 herein on 30-10-2006. He also sought for personal hearing before disposing of his appeal which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by order, dated 30-3-2007. The appeal thus disposed of without giving him a personal hearing. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the Appellate Authority, R-2, was justified in rejecting the appeal without hearing the Applicant when he sought for a personal hearing ℃ Rule 18 of the Rules 2001 deals with consideration of appeal. Rule 27 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 also provided for the same giving personal hearing. After analyzing all rules, the Appellate Authority is required to consider whether the procedure laid down has been followed, whether the findings are warranted by the evidence, whether the penalty is adequate or inadequate, etc. The meaning of the expression to consider is to be evaluated. The Respondents state that Rule do not provide that the appeal is required to be heard before passing an order on appeal. For this, they placed reliance on the Apex Court judgments. The appeal of the Applicant was disposed of without giving a personal hearing to him. In the case ofRam Chander v. Union of India and others [ 1986 (2) AISLJ 249 ], the Apex Court held that an objective consideration is possible only, if the delinquent servant is heard, giving a chance to satisfy the authority regarding the final orders that may be passed on his appeal. Consideration of fair play and justice also require that such a personal hearing should be given. The Full Bench of Bombay High Court held that Ram Chander's case would be applicable to Rules of 1979. After analyzing the expression "consider" the Division Bench held that the point is finally concluded in the decisions of Ram Chander. The Apex Court has held that personal hearing ought to be afforded by the Appellate Authority to the delinquent. The Full Bench of the Tribunal rejected the case of Mahendra Kumar Singhal [ 1994 SCC (L&S) 1017 ] as of no consequence in this case. Finally it was concluded that the expression "consider" will include within its sweep application of mind, personal hearing and recording of reasons and, therefore, it was obligatory for Appellate Authority to apply its mind and pass a speaking order affording a personal hearing to the delinquent. In O.A. No. 246 of 2007, the Division Bench of the Tribunal by its Order, dated 13-4-2011 referring to Tulsiram Patel's case held that the Appellate Authority not only give a personal hearing but also pass a reasoned order dealing with contentions raised by him in the appeal. Denial of personal hearing by Appellate Authority will prejudice the right of the employee. Hence the Appellate order was set aside and liberty was given for fresh consideration and disposal of appeal after being heard of the delinquent. In O.A. No. 389 of 2007, the order of Revisional Authority namely Postmaster-General, Mumbai was set aside as no personal hearing was granted when asked for and further directed to rehear the revision after granting a personal hearing. This order is based on the decision in the case of Ram Chander (supra).