VINUBHAI MAGANLAL THAKKAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not necessary to go into the question whether or not petitioner had right to demand personal hearing. It was the decision of the disciplinary authority conveyed to the petitioner through the Deputy Secretary to give personal hearing to the petitioner. In the show-cause notice served on the petitioner, the petitioner was asked to slate in his written representation whether or not he desired to be personally heard. In his written representation submitted in response to the show-cause notice, petitioner asked for personal hearing. Decision was, thereafter, taken to give personal hearing to the petitioner. The question which, therefore, arises is whether after the disciplinary authority decided to give personal hearing to the petitioner, personal hearing could have been given by any authority other than the disciplinary authority. The object of giving personal hearing is to give opportunity to the delinquent to persuade and convince the disciplinary authority and to convince him that the charges levelled against him arc not true and no punishment is called for. The disciplinary authority had in the instant case thought it was necessary to give personal hearing to the petitioner. It is, therefore, that the question which arises is whether once decision having been taken to give personal hearing to the petitioner, personal hearing could have been given by the Deputy Secretary. Would the hearing given by the Deputy Secretary amount to hearing given by the disciplinary authority since admittedly Deputy Secretary was not the disciplinary authority.

(2.) In the instant case the disciplinary authority did consider it necessary to give personal hearing to the petitioner. Once the decision to give personal hearing was taken, personal hearing had to be given by the disciplinary authority, who had to take decision in the matter. According to the respondents, the practice which is followed by the Revenue Department is that whenever decision is taken to give personal hearing such personal hearing is given by the Deputy Secretary and ultimate decision is taken by the Secretary or the Minister, as the case may be, in accordance with the Rules of business. As observed by the Supreme Court in the decision in G. Nageshwar Rao v. A. P. S. R. Corporation, AIR 1959 SC 308, this divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of judicial hearing. The disciplinary authority having decided to give personal hearing to the petitioner, it should not have left to the Deputy Secretary to personally hear the petitioner. Such hearing, as observed by the Supreme Court, would be an empty formality. Therefore, after having decided to give personal hearing to the petitioner, opportunity of personal hearing had been denied to him. (ISS) Rule made absolute.