Departmental appeals need no implied personal hearing, while appellate orders remain valid if they show application of mind and reasons.

In departmental appeals, a personal hearing is not an implied requirement of natural justice unless the governing regulation so provides, although notice and hearing are necessary where enhancement of penalty is proposed. The appellate authority may decide the appeal on the record and the grounds raised if the scheme does not mandate oral hearing. An appellate order need not be elaborate, but it must show application of mind and deal with the material contentions raised; a brief order that addresses the challenge and records reasons is not non-speaking. On that basis, the appellate decision was treated as a valid reasoned order, and judicial interference was held unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether regulation 17 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 implicitly required the appellate authority to afford personal hearing to the delinquent in a departmental appeal; (ii) whether the appellate order dated 4 June 2004 was vitiated for want of reasons.

Issue (i): Whether regulation 17 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 implicitly required the appellate authority to afford personal hearing to the delinquent in a departmental appeal.

Analysis: The appeal provision empowered the appellate authority to examine whether the findings were justified and whether the penalty was excessive or inadequate, and to pass appropriate orders including confirmation, reduction, setting aside, or enhancement of penalty. The provision did not expressly provide for a personal hearing at the appellate stage. The principles of natural justice are flexible and their content depends on the statutory scheme and the nature of the proceedings. In the absence of a specific rule, a right of personal hearing at the appellate stage cannot be read in as a universal requirement. A different position applies where enhancement of penalty is proposed, because fairness then requires notice and opportunity of hearing before an increased penalty is imposed.

Conclusion: The regulation did not confer an invariable right of personal hearing in every departmental appeal, though such hearing is required where enhancement of punishment is proposed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate order dated 4 June 2004 was vitiated for want of reasons.

Analysis: An appellate order need not be elaborate, but it must show application of mind and address the grounds raised in appeal. The impugned order dealt, albeit briefly, with each contention raised by the delinquent, including the challenge to the findings on the charges and the objection based on pending proceedings. The order disclosed reasons sufficient to show conscious consideration of the material and the grounds of challenge, and therefore could not be characterised as non-speaking.

Conclusion: The appellate order was a reasoned order and was not invalid for lack of reasons.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the appellate order was unjustified, and the disciplinary appellate decision was restored in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: In departmental appeals, personal hearing is not an implied requirement of natural justice unless the governing rule so provides or the appellate authority proposes to enhance the penalty, and a brief order that shows consideration of the grounds raised is a valid reasoned order.

---