http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF PATIALA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAHENDRA  KUMAR SINGHAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/01/1994

BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1994 SCC  Supl.  (2) 463

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Special leave granted. 2.   Heard  counsel  on  both  sides.   The  respondent  was visited  with the punishment of dismissal from service.   He filed  a  departmental appeal which came  to  be  dismissed, whereupon he moved the High Court by way of a writ petition. The High Court quashed the order of the appellate  authority on the ground that no personal hearing was given before  the appeal  was dismissed.  The matter was, therefore,  remitted to  the appellate authority to dispose of the  appeal  after hearing  the delinquent personally.  It is against the  said order that the present appeal is filed. 3.   No  rule  has  been  brought  to  our  attention  which requires  the  appellate  authority  to  grant  a   personal hearing.   The rule of natural justice does not  necessarily in  all  cases confer a right of audience at  the  appellate stage.   That  is what this Court observed in  F.N.  Roy  v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta’.  We, therefore, think  that the  impugned  order  is  not  valid.   Our  attention  was, however,  drawn  to the decision in Mohinder Singh  Gill  v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi’ wherein  observation is made in regard to the right of hearing.  But that was not a case of a departmental inquiry, it was one emanating  from Article  324 of the Constitution.  In our  view,  therefore, those  observations are not pertinent to the facts  of  this case. 4.   We,  therefore, set aside the impugned order and  remit the  matter back to the High Court for disposal of the  writ petition  on  the  other  grounds  and  contentions   raised therein.  Since the matter is fairly old, the High Court may expedite  the same.  The appeal is allowed with no order  as to costs.