Short Note : 1. Plaintiff Mohammad Hanif was a forest guard employed in the Forest Department of State of M. P. He filed a suit challenging the termination of his service on the ground of denial of reasonable opportunity during the enquiry. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the appellate Court decreed the same. 2. Held : The first ground which prevailed with the first appellate Court is mentioned in paragraph 13 of the judgment of the Court below. The Court below has said that refusal to give copies of statements of witnesses recorded in the preliminary enquiry without payment of Rs. 12.50 Paise as the copying charges amounted to denial of the requisite opportunity because the availability of those copies to the plaintiff was necessary for effective cross-examination of the witnesses examined during the departmental enquiry. It is sufficient to say that the Court below in saying so has found a ground for the plaintiff which was not even stated by the plaintiff himself. No material has been shown to indicate that the plaintiff at any time during the departmental enquiry prayed for supply of copies of depositions of witnesses who may have been examined in an earlier preliminary enquiry to enable him to cross-examination the witnesses which were to be examined in the departmental enquiry. In the absence of any such request by the plaintiff, the question of its refusal did not arise. It is not disputed that there is no statutory rule requiring the supply of any such copies so that the plaintiff was not entitled to get the same without making any request. The finding of the first appellate Court on this point, therefore, is reversed. The only other ground for the first appellate Court's decision is the omission to give a personal hearing. It is not disputed that the requirement of a personal hearing is not contained in Rule 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Appeal and Control) Rules, 1966, which governs the disposal of such appeals. It is settled that in the absence of a statutory provision making it incumbent to grant a personal hearing, the omission to give a personal hearing is by itself not sufficient to vitiate the appellate order. Suit dismissed. Appeal allowed.