S.H.A. Raza and I.P. Vasishth, JJ. - (1.) It has been submitted by Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that no pre-decisional hearing was given to the petitioner before the censure entry was awarded to the petitioner He fortified his aforesaid arguments on the preposition of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Vijay Kumar Tripathi and another, 1995 All LJ 770 : AIR 1995 SC 1130 wherein it was observed that Rule 55-8 (a) of the UPCCA. Rules does not exclude or prohibit the observance of the principles of natural justice. It only says that it is not obligatory to either frame formal charges or to call for the explanation of the concerned employee before the penalty of censure. Censure is a penalty, it cannot also be said that it has no adverse consequences. Hence the necessity to read the said principle start. It would certainly be open to the competent authority to provide a post-decisional opportunity instead of a pre-dacisional hearing. There may Indeed be exceptional situations where the principles of natural justice may have to be dispensed with, but they are an exception. It is up to the competent authority to decide whether in the given circumstances the opportunity to be provided should be a prior one or a post-decisional opportunity. Normal rule, of course, is prior opportunity.
(2.) Mr. Prashant Chandra argued that it was riot such a case where exceptional circumstances existed to warrant dispensing with the pre-decisions opportunity to the petitioner, hence the impugned order is non-est and deserve to be quashed.
(3.) Mr D.K. Arora who has appeared on behalf, of respondents drew our attention towards the provisions of Section 36 or the S.G.P.G.I.M.S. Act, 1983 which reads as under: "Section 36. If any question arises whether any person has been duly elected or appointed as, or is entitled to be a member of the Institute Governing Body, any authority or other body of the Institute or whether any decision of the Institutes. Governing Body or any authority or other body of the Institute is in conformity with this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder the matter shell be referred to the Visitor and the decision of the visitor shall be final: Provided that no reference made under this section shall be made more than three months after the date when the question could have been raised for the first time ; Provided further that the Visitor may in exceptional circumstances act suo motu or entertain a reference after the expiry of the period mentioned in the preceding proviso ";