TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1059
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y him while working as Senior Manager/Incumbent In-charge at 19-D, Chandigarh Branch. The article of charges served on the delinquent contained four charges, namely : (I) between the period September 14, 1999 to December 20, 1999, while recommending sanction of credit facilities and further enhancements in the account of M/s. Dunroll Industries Limited, the delinquent failed to ensure that the proposal has been properly appraised/processed and all the relevant information has been recorded in the process note; (II) the delinquent recommended release of working capital facilities aggregating to Rs. 64 lac in the account of M/s. Dunroll Industries Limited for the unit located at Sikandarabad (UP) at a distance of approximately 300 k.m. from the branch although the monitoring of unit at such a distant place was not possible; (III) the delinquent recommended enhancement of Rs. 175 lac in the Bank Guarantee limit on November 17, 2000 in the account of M/s. Dunroll Industries Limited without ensuring satisfactory conduct of the account and without going into the details of the transactions and implications thereof and (IV) the delinquent released credit facilities in the account of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellate Authority and submitted to the authority whose order is appealed against. The authority whose order is appealed against shall forward the appeal together with its comments and the records of the case to the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority shall consider whether the findings are justified or whether the penalty is excessive or inadequate and pass appropriate orders. The Appellate Authority may pass an order confirming, enhancing, reducing or setting aside the penalty or remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case....." 10. The High Court has taken a view that regulation 17 of the 1982 Regulations impliedly requires that a delinquent who has preferred appeal is afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the appellate authority. While taking such view, the High Court relied on a decision of this Court in Ram Chander v. Union of India & Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 103 and a Full Bench decision of that Court in Ram Niwas Bansal v. State Bank of Patiala & Anr. (1998) (4) SLR 711 . 11. We shall refer to the above two decisions first. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h a personal hearing should be given. 26. In the result, the appeal must succeed and is allowed. The judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated August 16, 1983 and that of the Division Bench dismissing the letters patent appeal filed by the appellant in limine by its order dated February 15, 1984 are both set aside, so also the impugned order of the Railway Board dated March 11, 1972. We direct the Railway Board to hear and dispose of the appeal after affording a personal hearing to the appellant on merits by a reasoned order in conformity with the requirements of Rule 22(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, not later than four months from today." In our opinion, in Ram Chander's case1, this Court has not laid down as an absolute proposition that in matters of departmental appeal against the punishment order of a disciplinary authority, the appellate authority must invariably afford personal hearing to a delinquent. 12. Insofar as, Punjab and Haryana High Court is concerned, it is true that in Ram Niwas Bansal2 while dealing with a similar regulation, i.e. regulat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1947. The Court noticed Section 4-M of that Act and in paragraph 3 at page 73 of the Report framed the question as to whether the requirement of hearing to the appellants has to be read as an implicit condition while construing the scope of 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4-M. This Court held (at pages 74-75) as under : "5. The High Court has primarily considered the question as to whether denying an opportunity to the appellant to be heard before his prayer to dispense with the deposit of the penalty is rejected, violates and contravenes the principles of natural justice. In that connection, several judgments of this Court have been referred to. It need not be pointed out that under different situations and conditions the requirement of compliance of the principle of natural justice vary. 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 statutor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in clear and unambiguous words that an appeal against an order imposing a penalty shall not be entertained unless the amount of the penalty has been deposited by the appellant. Thereafter the third proviso vests a discretion in such appellate authority to dispense with such deposit unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may impose in its discretion taking into consideration the undue hardship which it is likely to cause to the appellant. As such it can be said that the statutory requirement is that before an appeal is entertained, the amount of penalty has to be deposited by the appellant; an order dispensing with such deposit shall amount to an exception to the said requirement of deposit. In this background, it is difficult to hold that if the appellate authority has rejected the prayer of the appellant to dispense with the deposit unconditionally or has dispensed with such deposit subject to some conditions without hearing the appellant, on perusal of the petition filed on behalf of the appellant for the said purpose, the order itself is vitiated and is liable to be quashed being violative of the principles of natural justice. 14. Thus, in Jesus Sales Corpo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the principles of natural justice in the context of furnishing the report of the inquiry officer/authority to the delinquent employee. B. Karunakar6 does not deal with the question of necessity of affording a personal hearing to a delinquent by the appellate authority. 17. Mr. K.N. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the appellants cited a Single Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Y. Malleswara Rao v. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Hyderabad & Ors. 2006 LAB. I.C. 1384. In that case the delinquent was visited with the penalty of removal from service. The concerned delinquent preferred appeal before the appellate authority and one of the contentions raised before the High Court was that the appellate authority failed to afford a personal hearing to the delinquent and, therefore, the order of the appellate authority suffered from transgression of an essential principle of natural justice. The Single Judge of the High Court referred to decisions of this Court in Mahendra Kumar Singhal3, Jesus Sales Corporation4 and Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur5 and also the decision of Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Niwas Bansal2. The Single Judge also referred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tting the case to the authority that imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The appeal provision in regulation 17 of the 1982 Regulations does not expressly provide for personal hearing to the appellant. Is the right of personal hearing to the appellant implicit in the provision? We think not. In our considered view, in the absence of personal hearing to the appellant, it cannot be said that the very right of appeal is defeated. One situation is, however, different. Where the appellate authority proposes to enhance the penalty, obviously, the appellate authority must issue notice to the delinquent asking him to show cause why penalty that has been awarded to him must not be enhanced and give him personal hearing. It is so because the appellate authority seeks to inflict such punishment for the first time which was not given by the disciplinary/punishing authority. Although there are no positive words in regulation 17, requiring that the appellant shall be heard before enhancement of the penalty, the fairness and natural justice require him to be heard. 20. It is true that in Ganesh Santa Ram Siru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te authority must be elaborate and extensive. Brief reasons which indicate due application of mind in decision making process may suffice. Each ground raised in the appeal has been dealt with briefly as would be apparent from the following consideration of the matter by the appellate authority: "The contention of the appellant that no departmental action can be taken against him during pendency of criminal proceedings before the Court is not tenable; as departmental enquiry is independent of criminal proceedings and as such there is no bar to pass the order of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority during the pendency of criminal proceedings. The appellant has alleged that Inquiring Authority has erred in holding the imputation 2 & 3 under Article of Charge No. 1 as proved. On carefully perusing the evidence brought on record of the enquiry and other related record, I find that Disciplinary Authority has fully considered evidence/submissions made by the appellant and based on that the article of charge no. 1 is held partly proved against the appellant. This does not, however, mean that the Disciplinary Authority has in anyway exonerated the appellant of this charge. Hence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1/2 and after evaluating evidence of PW-1 during regular hearing held on 20-9-2003, I observe that article of charge no. 4 against the appellant in respect of releasing credit facilities in the account of M/s. Dunroll Industries Ltd. without complying with terms of sanction is rightly held proved by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence I do not find any force/merit in contention of the appellant that article of charge no. 4 has been wrongly upheld by the Inquiring Authority. The appellant has also referred to some pending enquiry proceedings against him in respect of charge sheet dated 12-8-2003 in the matter of Bankarpur Cold Storage and has contended that it is against principles of natural justice to take into account past service record without valid legal grounds. After perusing relevant enquiry record, I find that Disciplinary Authority in his order has referred to certain lapses/irregularities attributable to the appellant for the misconduct committed by him while posted as Sr. Manager/Incumbent In-charge, B/O 19-D, Chandigarh. Having regard to imposition/inflictment of penalty of dismissal on the appellant w.e.f. 14-2-2004 by the Disciplinary Authority under Regulation 4(j) of....