imposition of penalty without oral hearing amount to denial of reasonable opportunity or violation of the principles of natural justice

3. Does not the imposition of penalty without oral hearing amount to denial of reasonable opportunity or violation of the principles of natural justice? State of Punjab Vs. Nirmal Singh [JT2007(10)SC31, (2007)8SCC108] is a case based on Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1970. In this case, the individual had challenged the award of minor penalty without providing him personal hearing. Rejecting his submission, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “6. Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 deals with the review. A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that there is no provision of personal hearing in regard to inflicting minor penalties. The Rule contemplates a personal hearing only when the Disciplinary Authority proposes to impose any of the major penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 5 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified in those clauses. Admittedly, by an order dated 20.10.2003, the respondent was inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a minor punishment. The High Court, in our view, was clearly in error in setting aside the order dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Competent Authority on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.” [it needs to be noted that in Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1970, dealing with the Procedure for imposing minor penalty, provision corresponding to sub-rule (1-A) of Rule 16 of CCA Rules was not available. Therefore, detailed oral hearing was not mandatory, even for withholding of increment with cumulative effect.]