Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1801 (MAD)

K. Duraisamy v. The Chief Postmaster General

2008-06-17

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, P.K.MISRA

body2008
Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr. Ramaswamy Rajarajan learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Muralidharan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The order of punishment imposed on the present petitioner and confirmed by the appellate authority was challenged by the present petitioner by filing O.A.No.497 of 2004. In such O.A., mainly two contentions were raised by the petitioner. Firstly, it was contended that no opportunity of hearing was afforded by the appellate authority before rejecting the appeal. The other contention was to the effect that two punishments combining major and minor penalty had been imposed by the disciplinary authority which is not contemplated in the rules. The Tribunal, however, rejected the aforesaid contentions and dismissed the O.A. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the very same questions before us. In support of his first contention regarding non-compliance with the principles of natural justice by the appellate authority, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in RAM CHANDER v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ( AIR 1986 SC 1173 ) wherein after considering several aspects, it was observed by the Supreme Court as follows:- "Such being the legal position, it is of utmost importance after the Forty-Second Amendment as interpreted by the majority in Tulsiram Patels case that the Appellate Authority must not only give a hearing to the Government servant concerned but also pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by him in the 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." 4. Even though not cited at the Bar, we find that apart from the above decision, similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in UNION OF INDIA v. JESUS SALES CORPORATION ( (1996) 4 SCC 69 ) wherein it was observed as follows:- "The courts cannot insist that under all circumstances and under different statutory provisions personal hearings have to be afforded to the persons concerned. If this principle of affording personal hearing is extended whenever statutory authorities are vested with the power to exercise discretion in connection with statutory appeals, it shall lead to chaotic conditions. Many statutory appeals and applications are disposed of by the competent authorities who have been vested with powers to dispose of the same. Such authorities which shall be deemed to be quasi-judicial authorities are expected to apply their judicial mind over the grievances made by the appellants or applicants concerned, but it cannot be held that before dismissing such appeals or applications in all events the quasi-judicial authorities must hear the appellants or the applicants, as the case may be. When principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed on any appeal or application, it does not in all circumstances mean a personal hearing. The requirement is complied with affording an opportunity to the person concerned to present his case before such quasi-judicial authority who is expected to apply his judicial mind to the issues involved." 5. Rule 27 of CCS (CCA Rules), 1965 does not preclude the grant of personal hearing in suitable cases by the appellate authority. In the present case, when the petitioner requested for personal hearing, the appellate authority has simply rejected such request by observing that opportunity of personal hearing had been afforded at the time of original proceedings and therefore, there was no necessity of affording any further opportunity by the appellate authority. We do not think that the aforesaid approach by the appellate authority was justified. Since the rules did not specifically exclude the principles of natural justice as far as possible, the authorities vested with the quasi-judicial power should take action consistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play including personal hearing. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in GANESH SANTA RAM SIRUR v. SBI ( (2005) 1 SCC 13 in support of his contention that it is not necessary to afford any personal hearing by the appellate authority. 7. We have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision. The aforesaid decision does not lay down categorically that in all cases, the appellate authority should decline to give any opportunity of hearing. 7. We have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision. The aforesaid decision does not lay down categorically that in all cases, the appellate authority should decline to give any opportunity of hearing. In such view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal as well as that of the appellate authority and direct that the appellate authority shall give an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 8. Since the matter is being remanded to the appellate authority, it is not necessary to deal with other contentions raised by the petitioner as it would be open to the petitioner to canvass all the points before the appellate authority. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority. Since the matter is very old, the appellate authority shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.