W.L. KOTHIWALA Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of the decision given by the Supreme Court, in the case reported as Kartar Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1067 the petitioner submits that the punishment which has been awarded to him 10 days before the date of retirement requires to be modified in the same manner as was done by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid mentioned case.

(2.) Under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court of India has wide powers. This power is not available to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Faced with this the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority be directed to look into this aspect of the matter. He also submits that neither the Appellate Authority nor the Reviewing Authority afforded any personal hearing to the petitioner.

(3.) So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, this point has not been taken in the Writ Petition. However, from the perusal of the order passed in Review it becomes apparent that the order was passed after perusing the record . The same would be the position if Appellate Order is perused. If this be the position the ends of justice would be met if the Appellate Authority is directed to re-decide the appeal after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner. This course would be in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reported as Ram Chander Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1173. In para 23, following observations have been made by the Supreme Court:-