!N THEHIGHCOURTOF JUDICATUKE AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION No.^&^5fy OF 2000 :" .^ •Aa PETITION UNDERARTICLES 226/227 OF THE )NST!TUTIONOF INDIA .•^.. . ^ I.K.Manchanda, aged about 68 years, son of Shri G.D. Manchanda, C/o Gagan Fuels, Torwa, resident of BILASPUR '•• VERSUS 1. Central Bank of India, through its Chairman, Head Office at Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, IVIUIVIBAI - 400 021 2. Shri T.R.Verma, Deputy General Manager/Appellate Authority, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, RAIPUR 3. Shri V.S.Gore, Regional Manager / Disdplinary Authority, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Mahamaya Road, AMBIKAPUR (U.P.l PETITIONER i:'li RESPONDENTS 1. Particulars of the petitioner: Sdf-- Satish K.ft9"'hotr* judge m- siMei.eBeMeui V ST P^ittoner ResBondents Ut.ftaarotanda Vereus Pwseirt : Mr. Rari f^it^m ^nha, Mr. B.Ei.Qt.iru, wsed«i •20 cf Novennbw; to ttie present petilton fNettunder Aflete ^^27of fta Con^teBon of India.lhe ImpugnedoKter ctatod 2-3-2i)0a (^ffltNuanaff- 2) passeGt by fte DiscipUnaiy AuthGilty/Rsgtowt IWteuw^r aaardtng penaNy of dtsmtssal ftem servlcs on e prtWener and typellate wtor datad 21-8-2000 ^ftnnescBreP-^, whwe^ tha appwtf was atee dismtssed. 2. Thefa(te,inntrtsheU,areftat1tiepaWienw,nrtiN»worith® as Branch Mana^er, Nemnalala Branch, »«sS«WKIwitb a ch<H^- she^ dated 1-9-1886; An enqdiy WM eonclaetatf agBinsl hln. Ttae Enquiry Officer w«»neratedthe p^iaotwr fram alt ttie clwigw. Tha Dlscfplhiary AuBwrity, dis^roelng wtth th»findtogs ^ ttia Empiry Oflteer, Impowd ttiapens^ ol dfemissal fK»8W<i ^de order dated 1-12-'t987. Thet^peatflrefen'edsflati'wttttesahl^KierwaBd^BisTOtf byttteappeltateauthorityvideorderdtrted15<-1M8: 3. toing s^griwed, thepalWeRsrfltettawn Miscellameeus PrtWen No.1381 of of Malt^i Prad^h at Jabalpw; obseived andhakl asuRtto:- »,1R1 The Ugh ^ut^ after "Rule under CTnsictoraiBen in ttie atwesafet casa Is ttie same as in the present csse. In wa»ef the authortoftre pronouncsmentof the SupiemaGovrt, lhavenott88itatoRinacGepUnBft8«*RiiMionef Sri ftiya that fca DlsetpUnaqf Authe^ before disagreeing witti ths ftffldtag rt the Bnqutiy ©Iteer ought to have gtwen hhn nettoe eei'twylng tentarthfe rea^sns for disa®»ementantf opportunify to tw petiUonertojriacehisvlewpointinentoFt&tneeffe requiremsntof the prineipteof twrtuirt Justoe; Thte hs®nrt been dona. Thfe Usdf ^totes tt®tmpugned order. tecerdingfy tiw oretor of tt»Blselpllnwy Authortty dt. 1.12.19&7 ^temeat.ff®) M^ tha ^pellate Airthortty dstod 't5^.'t9»<Ann (:Pi^are quashed anet B»e matter is fentUtod baek to the Dfecipltnaty Auttiority who shaN tate finrf deeaien wthin 3 months from the date of reeelpWprachicBon of a cow of thte ordw, inaecordance »W) taw bearing Inmlmlthe obsenationmaite^abeva." 4. Thep^ittonwasalh3wedlwoiderdstotf16-11-tS» (Annexure P-1). The order of ttie leatned Sh'i^e Ju^e sf tt»+N^» Cotrt<rfJudicsrtu(BorMac iyaPradeshatJabalpBtt3eGaineflnal«»m» appeaVpeUUon was prefeired sgafnst ttie said onler ctated 1&-11-t999 (Annexure P-1). 5. Pu(suanttotti8orcterdatoel"tS-11-<l8^(Ann®uiroP-1) passed by ttw H^h &'tirt> th®•3isc^lna'y AUUiwity - rosptmdant No.3 Issuedanotlce<tated9-2-2000(ARn®M R«1}»under- "NoUce Shrl t.K. Manchanda, firaneh Nemnateta Braneh (under suspwiston) ha> been served with the chwgeehert iw.'RMWGIWS&aa^. Dated ©1.09.1986 ireued by Shri J.D.Matik, Regional K4anager, Shahdol, in the capacity of Disctpltaary Auttaalty. Consequent upen reorganisafian crffl^lons, since ratowd Namnakato Branch ha»eoms under Uw jurisdleUon of AnAlteipur Regton, Bie i in the eapacity of R^iional Btons®er, being vssted sritti the pewws of l Authorify, bereby adopts tt» atoom diargssheet aan^ shdt act as Uw Authortty witti reganl to the abow said chaqieshee*. It Is furUror nrtffled that in twms ^ Order dated 16.1-t.^ sf ttre Hon'bto High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.the flndings ^the enquiqr proceacUngs datad 10.01.87 to ^.04.87 with Shrt P.G.Mishra ^ Enquhy Offteer and Shrt R.P. ia|ancW as Presenttng ©fficer,shall hald goodforthepurp<»e." 4 6. Thereafter, a show c«ae meino dated 14-2-8000 (Annexure R-2) was tesuecl by the Dteaplmafy AuUiertty - te^»Qndent No.Sto ttie petifioner in followtng terms :• " -: Shew<Sausa Memo :• 1 haw gon8throughth8findiBgsdairt4».@.MlBhn, Enquhy Oflfew, 'm ttie nwUw of depiutmwrtri enquiry hdd a^in^ ®trlI.K. Maiwhan*, Bfwiefe Manager, Nemnakala Branch {Under Suspsrotoi'^tn pursBance to th® ShaiBe Shert no.RM/W©®/8®!38^ elatod ©1.fi®.88aero«l or» him. 1 agrea wtUr the (mdings of tte Enquiiy Oflfear. Copy of Vha ffindmgs <rf 8 Enquffy Officw, datKl 24.09.87 is bemg endossd. T(»uncteRlgned In the capacity <rf Discfplinary Atrtiority trill tate a aittabto deciston on ttie matter after »<amintngtt»same. In the meanthne, if Shri LK. Manchawla deslres to mato any submission against the Rndlngs of fce Enqulry Offlcw, he may do se on M.£B.2W>0 at Ainbikapur b^bre ths undBisignsd, (aUlng whtch tt shaB be presumed that he has i»submissiaw to mafce agamst the Flndmgs of tt»Enquliy ©Bioer and the undeB^giied shdl proeeedte pasattw Final Oider." 7. The p^itionar flted his reply to »ianeUce datad 8-2-a®00 (Annexure R-1) vide rspresarrtrfon <tat8d 20-2-20fi0 (Amwaira P-^ opposinghoklingd'acteflGvoBnctuiiysufan'iUlngttNtthel'iokth'^ofdlB novoenquiry amourds tocontempt rfCourt. TheOlacipBtKBy^tttorWy, vlde order dated 29-2-%300 (Anneaire P-^. aftw racoidb®that tee p^Woner had taHad to fito ar 2-2000 (^inaaare R«1)and ttie show cause memo dat8* 1 (Annexure R-2), proposal toltowhiBpuntshinent:- "OI-ChargeNo.1- The tB^rstgmd agrses ttiat the chaige te party prowct and |»eposes a punfehment of "Dismissal feem sentee whieh shall ordinaRly be a disquaHflcafion fer tuture CTnployment. 02-ChaigsNo.2- Th6 undeis^ned <®rew®»t the ^Rasge is pai'Uy provert a*d proposw a punlshmentof"BismissatftwnMniCTwhichstial orellnarily be a dtsqtaliffieaUon for ftrtuc empl<^ment. 03-GhargeNo.5- The unttere^ned agwes thtrt tha chaige te pai^ preval and prqaoaes a punishment rf "ftedyeton ®f|My t>y <ma ^age te thetlme scate of psy. 04-Gharge No.8- The uiadwslpiedagieesttft the ctnrge Is fully pioved and prepos^ a punlshment ef "EHsmlssal frora sennc* vfcteh sNdl onltaarity be a disqualifferton tor (utore emptoyment. 05-Cha^sNo.lfl- Tha unctoi'^ned tflf»»that the chaige ts (»fUy prowd and pi^xsw a punishment ef^missal flwn senrtce wWrti diaU oidtearHy be a dtec^aliflcafion fer fi^ure employment." 8. It was teritoer obserosd ttiat If the prtBMwr de^res to make any representafion or submlsstoB regardtag ttw 6 punishment, a personal hearii^ would be afloided tB ttw pe»iowron 2-3-200& at 11 A.M. rt the prantfeas of Regtenat ®Bee,AnWtayur, feiling whtch, tt wouht be presumed tturt Ihs peSBwier haa m> submisston to mri®a^prinst ttie jx^x>sed ptintelunNtt; Tlw |B8(BiGner therestor submNted a reppweRtatton en 3-3-SQBB (Atmasawe f»-7> pR^to^ fcr one week's ttne to ixasm'rt his ci»e throt^h dete»e representatwe. The Enquliy OIBcer, aHer Iwn*^ heanl tte pdiUatOT, declined to grant time fer eoreuWng ctofence repiwwMattw <rf Uw pettttoner, eonchKted Uw preeeedings antf passed ttro hnpagned wdw datod 2-3-2000 (Annaaire P-2) awaRting • oonsrfidatBtl pem^ of "Dismissal ftom senrice" under Regulatton 4(^ of Ihe ©enlratBsu* of lndiaOfBceisEmployw»'^3isGlpli(iea(id^>peal)ReguhrtleRSi1876. 9. Being^igriBTOd.thepetiBoi'ierfWfeiredMiappMtfbefero ttie Depuly Generat Mana®sr- A^sllate Aulhority: Tlw Apprtlate AuthorHy, in tho couree of hearing of appsat, provkled oppwtunify for a personal haarti®on 10-6-2000. On t0^-200&, ttiepeUtioner, dong with ttie etefence fepresentaflve, requasted fer sonw rroore fime fcr preparaUon of his case. The peUttoner vwis granted Ume till 19-8-2000. On 1&<-2000, tte petitioner submitted his defwice and requested t® consider his appeal on humanitarian grounds. The Appellate Authorify, after having con^lered thedefance ofthe peUtloner, hsktaaundw:- "Ths unders^ted has carefalty fl9i»toou^i tt» chmgeshe^, ftndings <rf th®enqaby, WEtilWte; Show Cause Memos, flnri ord^ ttertKl 02(030000 vte-a-vts tte appeat (tated SWS2BBO and hte submisstons dated 19®6a000and finds that ttia DisGiplinaiy Auawrity has,m Ms flnd ordeis dated 02W^OO©,In wcpBrt ol chage No.1, chaigs Ne.2, eha^a No.8 tmd ctNuge No.18 snwiided the penatty <rf "DisimMat trom sewtee givlng ®ut his oum findings w jusWed reaseninas irtth WSeswse to the flndh^ of th® Enqdiy ^^Beer and Bwn awanted (he pateil8«. The appetonl dkt not ftimlste amy neu? petorts or evldencas in tegaid tottB atowBctuuys hi hte whteh mayatb'ENrttheattBnaeftofttKtinctere^ned in order to eonsWa' Ms appeaKbr any tdlef or relaxaBons In Uw pendly. Tha undarelgned obseived ttiat tee^aeliite rateed Iqf llransaltamt are retatod toniwrty on ccmplfemcaetftheeourt'* orders by ttie DisdpHnaiy AvUtoi'^ id he has dlscussect ttie iss»»stieganling Ws pociUBn In tt»e Banltantfottier bendSls to Wm. The underelgned, therafore, flndstw flnirf OKtois datect C®^@00&passett t^ the Btaeipllnaiy AufhortyhioKterandnndsthecht^w^as.piwwt agatnst which tti®pmwlfy of "Dlwrtasrt ftom swrtctf'hasbe«»swn ctoettott»appdlaiit:The undetslgRed also flnds the pena^f of lasmfesri ftom sereic^' as an appropriata aBtf ItBtUhri » ispwtlnenttBadcM'wrettattechntodlUesradMd arei chaiges levelted s^ainst him whW»condusiwly prowdtaeyondat^tloubts; ht view ef ttie tBwgotogs ttiaundeRiywd ag»aes wBfrftB ^walty of "DlsnussaKrem eeroiaa?' a» avraRtod to ttie appBNant by ttw @iacl|rtmaiy Authortty \*to his final ordere datod ^/I08Q SNid the same pwiatly of "Dlsmissal fcBm sawie® whfeh shaU otdh'wrily be a dist|ueflnGatiw» for ftrture emphqmientP i8 twreby cwtftmad by the tt is fticther dariBed here ftiat the appdtaBtwas eartier dismlssed from bank's^^^N'vteB irtde flnrt orders dated 01/12/19&7 smd on tBCtuNcriity, remitBng the case by ttw Hott'bte H^h ©ourt; ^batpur vlde oreter dated 1&.11.1999 fer »wiewto tak®a ftnat decisten af the Dtsai^lnary Au orlty, the Disciplinary Autherity, after revle»»of tte ease in Us enttrety has amaKtod <ha pemrfty trf "Dismissajfrems8ivtee''vtdehlsfinaloRtersd«tBd Oa'ZOai.theretora, the datus of ttw appgNant remalns thal of adlsndssed en^^®e^f aince 01/12/1987." and dismlssed the appert of ttis peUtfoner by ordw (Annexure P-3). 10. hteard toai'ned eoanset tw fee partto^ penaed ttw peUUon, rstum and doGuanente appemted to th®petlBon as atao to the Frtum. 11. Th»ontyc«ttenfion<rfttiepettBoneristtiatra8poiMtent No.3 - ths Disciptinary Authority tias passed U»8o(dw*Ww>rta(fenSi^ an opportunity of hearii^ te ttia peWener SBida»suehtha lmf»w»(t order dated 2-3-200& (^tnesaire P-2) paawd by the DladpNnary ^ittiotityff^iCTial Ntanagar as wrell as tt»owte datatf 21-8^008 ^nrrexure f>-3) passed fey respsndent No^2 - the ^apdlate ^.NwiWy arevitiated; On penBaf ofttie do(amwnte,it isewktenltttata proper notteedatod &-2-2000(Ann®(ureR-'t)and ashowGat.Ke memedatBtt 14-2-2000 (Annwure R"2> were issued by the DlscipUna»yAttfiority. The Disdpllnaiy Auttisrity ttereerfter fss(w*»sh®»» Mt®» memo cterted 14-2-2000 as to why tt»petiltoner be notdismissatimro senaCT. The peUUoner subtnitted his representEton on 20^-2Q ^wimure P-^. TheOisdpllnary Auttwity, ator havti^ consideretfteeropiesBrtationof ttie pefittoner, fixed the malter fer pereonri hearlng »»2-A'2(XX^ wherein a request mate by the peWonar tor giant ef Bar to ebtam assistance <rf defence te^esentatoe was rajsstKt and tt»DlscqriiBaiy Authority iwoeeeded to pass ttie impugned eider ^ (wntshment. ItiB obvious that the DiscipBnaiy A^ierity he» oon^dwed tt» to ttie peUttoner. The ^aellate Aufhority, having noUsedtha defaet of notaffonting petsonal hearlng to tee peUtioner, h»u«l•notteeto Uie petitloner for afftwding hlmopportunBy of piBrsenal heaih^ Tl»m(rtter was fixed for pMsonat hwring on 10-6-280} aid at the icqnst oftha petittoner the msMer was ad|oumad to 1&^^00&and tti^peBUoner was afforded subdanfial haaring on the n®d(tate, t.e:, 1&^-2000. Tlie Appetlate Authority, after havmg compliedwitti tt»prindptoa tfnaturrf justice, passed the appetote order dated 21-8-2M0 (Ann®tt»reP-3). Learned coureel for the pettUoner has not raised any other point lik® perversity in the report, flnding is i»Asupported byany evidence. 12. The Supreme Court, in the mattor ef PuHfab Nutiwiaf Bank and otftere vs. KwiJ Beharf IWsra1, white draling with ttie question of oniortunity in case tha DiasipUnaiy AutherHy disagrees witt the enquifyauthority, (Aserved as under:- "17. Tlwse obswvaUons ae ct«u1y<n tema wiUi the observaUons m S^mt Kamw PfmM cw^ 10 quotod aariier and would be appHcabto a* »wflral stage itseff; The afoBesaWt passi^ps daarty bring out the necesslty <rf the authortty nrtih*fe to tinally record an adverea findlng to gB»a heaitng ta the delinquentrfBcer. tftheenquityotfieerhadgiwenan adveise flnding. as per KwsimSw caa^ ths firat sta^ reqylred an ofq»rtu(nty to be glven to »ie emptoyee to reprosent te ttw discifUnay autheilfy, even when an earilw opportunity haetbeen gnrtad to ttiem toy the wwyiliy offlcer. It ^U nel stMict to reason that when the flndiRg tn ftwour of tbe dellmiuent oflteere is propossd to be overtnnetl by the disdpllnary auttwrlly then n®sppoitenKy should be grairted. The firat slsue ot Uw enquky is net compl^ed tUt ttie clisdpliflaty autha^ h»iet»nte<i fls flndlngs. The princ^les of nsrturat juaBce waitW demand that the auttrortty which propeses to dedde against the dellnquent offlcer mwt ghna Mm a hearing. When the enqulrhig officw hohte ths charges to be proved, ttien tiiat report tws to be given to the deHnquent offfeer wlw ct» malie a represenlaUon brtore ttie dtscipBnary authwtty tafcw further adlon whtch msy b* pw^UEteirt to tt» delinqusnt olfteer. When, llt<»h ttie piesent CSSB®, the snqutry f^ort te In fa»8W ef ths deltw|UBnt ofBcer but tt»dlscipBnaiy autority pR^oses to dfffer wi such conctusiare, Utwi ttat auBiorily ^icft Is decUig agatnst thedsllnquent oMcer must given him an opportunity of bmng heani fer olherwise he would be condemned anhearel. to departraentert proGeedir^s, vsrtirt te cf ulUmate imporiance Is tha flndtng of ttw discipBnary auth<xtty." "19. The result of ttie afowsaid discuaston wauld be that the prtnciples of naturatjysUce taw to be 11 read tato RagulaUon 7^). As a result theieof, whenwer the discipNnaty auUiorily dteasrees wWh the enquiry authorily on any arttete rt charge, then before ft recoids tts own findht^ en sueh chwge, it must record Hs tentatlv» ressoiw fw such diss^reement and g'nre to Ihe dslinquent olRcer an opportunity to rapnsent before ft reeonte tts flndlngs. The repoit ofthe enqtnryrtBoereortahdng its flndlngs wHI have te b» eosweyect am* ttie delinquent ofRcer wUI hawi am oppertuntty to persuade the cHsclplhwry auttoiUy t9 accepl tt»e favourabte concta^on of the enqui^ sffitw. The princlptos of natural juaUce, as we ftawe al «ly ^served, require the authertly wWd* tao te terfa a flnal deciston and isan imp^e a paaNy, to ghre an opportunlty to ttie offieer chwgsd af irtsconduiA to ffle a representatton before ft»tBsc^alhwuy artlwrity records lls flndlngs wi the charys ftsnted against theofficer." 13. lnano#iercaseofCanaraBm*imdoth»»v».Dd>t»ls Das smd others2, the Su|Wme Court, vrtiite discu^Rfl wtth ttie coneepl^ naturat |u^ice, obaervwt t»wider:- "18. Gonc^rt ef natuml justtea hsa urWteigona a gwat dert e( ehange In recerrt yeaB. RHles af naturat justfee are mrt rotos emtwcBed dw^ys e)q»esslyina statute or In rulasftwnatflheiiBunder; Th^y msy b®impliecKrom tti®nature ^Uw dutyto be peifomned under a ^atute. Wtal puUcular ruto of natural justee shoutd be In^ied arwt wliat te context shouW be (n a^vsn case must c^>end to a graat extent on the fE»teand eiRiumsrtimees of that ct»e,the ffamework ofttie atatuto under which 1fte 12 enquhy is hehl. Th®otd cBsttncBon toetwwn a Judtetal aet and an EKlBtii^baUve act has orittwracl away. Even an adminishaUve oider wNeh liwalw civit consequenees must be ewtSistentwWi tt»nitos of nafairal JusUce. The e)q»esslon "cMI GonseqMences" encompasses in(BacUm» ef not rnerety property or pwsontf ri^rts but of eMt tlbetfes, nurteiial ^prii^tons and non-pecuntnry damages. In its wide umbTrita caass evaiythh^ fliataBBGtsacatizenlnhtSCiviltitiB." "21. How then ha»e ttie prineiples ®fntrturat justtee been interpi^act tn tha courts and wiUiln wha* Mmite are tti^ to be confined? Ovw Nte yeais byaprecessofjudicialintefpfrtatlon1<mrutoshaw been evolved as represei'dlng •»prin^atos of natural |u^tee h»^Kiteial procass, iBctadtog Miwein qusBJ-judiclat and arinrfnistatfw procew; lliey consUute the baste rtenwnts of a Wt hewtny, having ttielr reots h»Sie innato sense ef man fw tair ptay and judiGe wrtiich is not tha peseiveof any partteular race w ^untoy btrtisshared <n eemmon by all n»Bn. The flt^ rute is "rawno^dm to S8u»a saef w "flemo cfe6rt es»e/udRKA» prepraa causa susfas steited In EarfefSaj&y's case18 ftiat <s,"no man shaB be a jHdga in his own c»ise". €oteused the teRR 'aVqtiis oan ctofe^ ssse Jadtof to piapria causs, gMBflOffpote8(ass8jifdwf8(p»ss"^Bo.LU. 14'M^, ttiat is, "no num <KigW to laaa juctg»to hto own case, because he cannrt su^ a«judgB and at the same tlme be a party". The fen»"flBtiwpetosf BSseMmu/acfc>ref^EjGtesC',ttaatte,''no8nacwtb»at once suUm' and juc^i" Is tteo a* Smes us«t. The second rute Is "»<dra<tenwnpmtBof, ttwrt ia, "XKWT tt®offw sfete". At dmes and partteulwly in conttieitfal countri®s,the tonn "audMEff- <rt <rih»» para" te used, meamng very much the KUIW tMi^; if 13 A ooroUary tas been dedueed ftom tt»abwe two rutes and patflcularty the audt alteram partem »Nte, namely 'qtri aSeiad stahiwit, ja»feOTaudtti <rilte» acqFuum/fort dl&wtf, haoef acguww feeeir teat fe, "he who shdl cteeide ai^thii^ wBhaut Uie olher det» hsBflng been heanl, alUiei^i he may haw saW what Is r^M, will not have bean wlirt te ^W ^ee Boswefs casvf" (Co R^> at p. %-a)] or fti cffiiw words, as it is new aagtressed, "juNfee shedd not only be dona but shetdd maiijfestfy 1»8e«tto be done". WhenweraROfdwte^'uckttonmswimiBaHtf balng in vietatian of princtptos of natemal ^le®, tftero is-no flnat dedskm rf the caw and fre^ proceedtigs are teft upon (afe open); M VMt s dons te to wreate tha erder assaBed by vhter rt Ite inherent defect, but th& procaedlngs are not tei'minated* 14. In the case ef Vhreka Nand 9^W V9. ©iMrfmum,J & tonk Ltd. and ottera , the SBpreme Court observed as timter:- '^) "22. The principte of nateaitjudlce, tt is Wto, Is no ynndy. hwse. Wffien feets are admiiUad, an enqi.ilry woukl be an ampfy fomality; Ewn ttw prind^erf estoppet vM apply. (See GwfewHm Qwew^fBi'.} v. Dr. Sumfta Ossh9.! The prin^w o( natoFal jusUc®we recp.rired to be coraplto* wlh h»*ig regafd to tha tect sKuaGtm oWalnh^ thwein. K cannrt be put in astratgaGfeet foiaula. H: esmnot be a|^)lied In a vacuum wlttiout roferwwe to th® relevant facte and circumstanGes M tt»c»e. (Ssa Stefe cf Pur^ab v. Ji®6-Sins^* and KewaMw SRTCv.S.G. Kettwavpa5.}" .1_-—— 14 15. In ttie case of an( S^ft va. Kntan »/toctowitf <rtftera4,the Supreme Gourtdiservedas tBKter:- "22. Ih view of Uie aforomertgon^ dedstoiw of thtsOourtiillsnowwBUsrtUstflhatttepta^eaef natural justice were requlredt®toe csm^led wttlt tqr tte (Bsclplnaiy auttwrify. Htwasdserequtodto apply hte mind t& tha matoiBte on feeort; The wiqHhy olBcer arehwd at flnth^a wMttr ww»e i»» favour efthaa^ellant. Such flmlhgs wi«seragtNred (<Hfc sought) to l>e ovwtuimed ty ttis tfa^ilhnry auffiorttir. It is ta Uwrt ^riew offlw maltw (hB peww' soughttobeeiaretsedl^rthecttedpltoafyauttKU'i^, alU vghraitasttiatofanAppalb<eAMt(»rtty,tKitis aWntherrto. TheinqukytBportwaBinfewauroftha appellant biirt the discipUnary atrthorify prepeaed to dUfer wBt such eoncluBfore airf, Uius, apart fremt complylngvi^ttrttie prim^tes of naterrf jusfice B waa eblgatoyort his part, In ttt®sAsancs ef any dww- causefltedbytheappellant,toa»ial^at(wmateri«fe( on recordafresh." ••^ 16. Coinhig to the facte of tte praBsnteaBe.theraKi^inay AutlTOrify has dready teued show cause memo^to ttw deNnquw* (fce peWoner). The ^apeltato AuNwMity has canstdwacKhe <a»efti detait and has atoKled ftill oppertunjfy of pereon^ hearfng to ttw pdfUwiw. Thus, the reqttlrament of |Mtnc«pl&ef nsrtural justte®haa tdty been 17. ItisweNsetttedprind^aoyiawttwttheseepeofJudteiri revlewuRderA<telTO22eQ27ofttieCoflsBto >n<rflndial8tim(tedto thedaficiencyindecistortmaldngprecessandnotttiBtrtGfelon. lnth» 15 i,fl0< aB*fl*e p^Uoiw elh^RdKqBBdteR^'iBi perveisi^li li'i .:i!i'i':i k:t-'; f;: ' 1-1"-.1«- t8.:: . '' ^w'ttw- ieasG»nst;'ar^; pNrttton is disntteftBds, ln^nfcaB»fc?iapd oKtoras «f:'tt»''0!et^:LltBr:: Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri, Judge QSfhl' 1 2 a 4 ^^48^4^