J.P. Singh, J. 1. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and its functionaries have filed this Writ Petition questioning the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (Circuit Bench at Jammu)'s order dated 18.11.2009 in O.A. No.268/JK/2008 whereby Sangathan's order dated 05.10.2007 and subsequent orders removing Vidhya Sagar Khanna from the service of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan with effect from the date of his remaining absent from duty were set aside issuing directions to the Competent Authority of the Sangathan to pass fresh appropriate orders as per rules affording opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1. 2. We have heard petitioners' learned counsel and perused the orders of the Tribunal and those of the Sangathan dealing with respondent No.1's service. 3. The Tribunal has relied upon the Supplementary Instructions incorporated in the Education Code governing the service conditions of the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalayas to justify its conclusion that respondent No.1's removal from service was bad in law for violation of the principles of Natural Justice. Clause-III of the Instructions, relied upon by the Tribunal, reads thus:- "The Disciplinary Authority while examining the representation on show cause should preferably give a person hearing to the employee before issue of the final order of loss of lien on the post, thereby terminating the service of that employee". 4. It was not disputed by the petitioners' learned counsel at the time of the Motion hearing that the petitioners had not allowed personal hearing to respondent No.1 before directing his removal from service. 5. Not only the Supplementary Instructions relied upon by the Tribunal but the provisions of Rules-5 and 6 of Article 81 (D) of the rules too reveal that the Appointing Authority had the discretion to allow oral hearing to the employee concerned to represent his case before considering his Representation against the Provisional order made by the Authority for termination of his service. Reading of the instructions relied upon by the Tribunal and the provisions of rules 5 and 6 of Article 81(D) appearing in Chapter VIII of the rules make it imperative for the Appointing Authority to afford opportunity of personal hearing to the employee sought to be removed from service while considering his Representation to the Provisional order of his termination. 6. 6. The orders passed by the Competent Authority of the appellants directing respondent No.1's removal from service, do not indicate Authority's consideration at all for exercise of discretion to allow opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1. Thus, in the absence of any reasoned order by the Authority justifying refusal of opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent at the time of considering his Response to the Show Cause Notice, the action of the petitioners in removing the respondent from service, cannot be justified. 7. In any case, looking to the complexion of the rules and the instructions issued by the Sangathan and intention underlying therein, opportunity of personal hearing, in the circumstances of the case, was required to be allowed to the respondent-employee, which the petitioners, had failed so to do before directing his removal from service. 8. We, therefore, find no merit in the Writ Petition warranting interference in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 9. No case for admission having been made out, this Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.