ANANDA SEN, J. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for following reliefs:- i. “For direction upon the respondents to grant opportunity to be heard in person before the Disciplinary Authority. ii. For direction upon the respondents to supply documents, information and clarification as per representation dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure-10). iii. For direction upon the respondents to grant time of 15 days, to the petitioner for filing reply/ representation before the disciplinary authority, from the date of service of documents and information as per aforementioned prayer. iv. To restrain the respondents from further proceeding in the matter of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition.” 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned ASGI representing the respondent – Union of India. 3. The parties agreed for disposal of this writ petition at this stage itself on merits of the case. 4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner argues that the petitioner was not given the opportunity of personal hearing however, he had already sought for the same. By not giving the opportunity of personal hearing, the respondents have violated Rule 14 (4) of The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 . He further submits that several important documents were not handed over to him, thus, he is prejudiced and could not defend his case properly. On these grounds, he made the prayer which has been mentioned above. 5. Learned ASGI, representing the respondent – Union of India, submits that the petitioner has no right to be heard in person. He can only express his desire but the same will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He further submits that all the documents which were necessary to proceed in the matter has been handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding and now the case is at the stage of filing a reply to the second show cause notice, which the petitioner has not filed till date. 6. It is not necessary to deal with the facts of this case and decide the same as it may prejudice either of the parties. 7. For the purpose of deciding the issue in question, it is necessary to state that the petitioner was charge sheeted on 09.03.2023 alleging some misconduct. 6. It is not necessary to deal with the facts of this case and decide the same as it may prejudice either of the parties. 7. For the purpose of deciding the issue in question, it is necessary to state that the petitioner was charge sheeted on 09.03.2023 alleging some misconduct. The Hindi translated copy of the charge-sheet was handed over to him on 20.04.2023. The petitioner filed his written statement on 20.04.2023. He also requested for personal hearing. 8. The personal hearing was sought for in terms of Rule 14(4) of The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “the CCS Rules, 1965”). It is necessary to quote Section 14 (4) of the CCS Rules, 1965, which reads as hereunder:- “ 14. Procedure for imposing major penalties.- (1) …………… (2) …………… (3) …………… (4) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government Servant a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government Servant to submit, within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and state whether he desires to be heard in person.” 9. From perusal of Rule 14 (4) of the CCS Rules, 1965, I find that no vested right has been created by this Rule to give personal hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner has to merely state as to whether he desires to be heard in person or not. It is the desire of the petitioner which has to be conveyed. This does not mean that in each and every case, a delinquent employee must be given an opportunity of personal hearing. What needs to be seen is that the principle of natural justice has to be followed. The principle of natural justice can be complied with by asking the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice. It is not necessary that in each and every case, the opportunity of personal hearing needs to be accorded. 10. Further, from holistic perusal of Rule 14 of the CCS Rules, 1965, I find that the same deals with the procedure for imposing penalties and how the departmental proceeding has to be conducted. It is not necessary that in each and every case, the opportunity of personal hearing needs to be accorded. 10. Further, from holistic perusal of Rule 14 of the CCS Rules, 1965, I find that the same deals with the procedure for imposing penalties and how the departmental proceeding has to be conducted. Each Sub-Rule of Rule 14 deals with each stage of the departmental proceeding. Rule 14 (4) of the CCS Rules, 1965, deals with a stage where the charge-sheet is submitted and the initially written statement is sought for. At this stage, a liberty is granted to the delinquent employee to express his desire as to whether he wants to be heard in person or not. Further, Rule 14 (5) of the CCS Rules, 1965, onwards deals with the stages when the Authority intends to proceed against the delinquent employee by setting up an enquiry, on a situation when the delinquent employee opposes or does not accept the charge. Thus, if at all the employer accepts the desire of the delinquent employee to give an opportunity of being heard, the same is at a stage before the charge is framed and the Enquiry Officer is appointed. 11. After the enquiry is conducted and report is furnished by the Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority, a second show cause notice has to be issued to the delinquent employee. If the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the finding of guilt of the delinquent employee as per the report of the Enquiry Officer and after considering the reply to the second show cause notice, seek to punish him, there is no provision to give personal hearing. 12. The procedure is incorporated in Rule 14 (23) of the CCS Rules, 1965. It is necessary to quote Rule 14 (23) of the CCS Rules, 1965, which reads as hereinunder:- “14. (23) (i) After the conclusion of the inquiry, a report shall be prepared and it shall contain- (a) the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; (b) the defence of the Government servant in respect of each article of charge; (c) an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge; (d) the findings on each article of charge and the reasons therefor. Explanation- If in the opinion of the inquiring authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish any article of charge different from the original articles of the charge, it may record its findings on such article of charge: Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the Government servant has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge. (ii) The inquiring authority, where it is not itself the disciplinary authority, shall forward to the disciplinary authority the records of inquiry which shall include :- (a) the report prepared by it under clause (i); (b) the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the Government servant; (c) the oral and documentary evidence produced in the course of the inquiry; (d) written briefs, if any, filed by the Presenting Officer or the Government servant or both during the course of the inquiry; and (e) the orders, if any, made by the disciplinary authority and the inquiring authority in regard to the inquiry.” From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that there is no concept of giving opportunity of personal hearing to the delinquent employee at this stage. The delinquent employee has the right to object the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer by filing a reply to the second show cause notice and oppose the proposed punishment also, but no right is there to be personally heard. 13. At this stage, the delinquent employee is at liberty to take all the points which he desires so, including the procedural illegality or irregularity committed by the Enquiry Officer in proving the charge and also including the grounds on which he is opposing the reports which will also include non-furnishing of document etc. It is the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to consider each aspect, which has been raised by the delinquent employee in his reply to the second show cause notice and pass the final order. It is the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to consider each aspect, which has been raised by the delinquent employee in his reply to the second show cause notice and pass the final order. Be it noted that if the Disciplinary Authority finds that there was a violation of principle of natural justice and no opportunity was given to the delinquent employee either by way of non-furnishing of documents or otherwise, he may pass an appropriate order in that case, but the fact remains that there is no provision to give opportunity of personal hearing to a delinquent at the stage of replying the second show cause notice. 14. Considering the provision of law, I find no ground to grant the relief as claimed by the petitioner in this writ petition. 15. Since the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with the copy of the enquiry report, on 24.07.2024 and in spite of the reminder in December, 2024, the petitioner has not replied the same. I thus direct the petitioner to file his reply within six weeks from today. The Disciplinary Authority will proceed thereafter and conclude the proceeding as early as possible. 16. In view of the aforesaid direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of 17. In view of the disposal of this writ petition itself, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.29 of 2025 has been rendered infructuous and stands dismissed as such.