Cyriac Joseph, C.J.
1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 08.06.2006 in Writ Petition No. 38992 of 2000. The appellants arc the respondents in the writ petition and the respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ petition.
2. The petitioner was a Subedar Clerk in the Army. While lie was serving as Subedar Clerk his case was considered for promotion to the rank of Subedar Major on three occasions viz., 1997, 1998 and 1999, but he was not selected for promotion to the cadre of Subedar Major. The non-selection of the petitioner for promotion was based on his Annual Confidential Reports. Alleging that there were manipulations and insertions in his Annual Confidential Reports and hence they could not be the basis for refusing promotion to him, the petitioner filed a statutory complaint dated 01.03.2000 to the Chief of the Army Staff. The statutory complaint was rejected by the Chief of the Army Staff on the ground that it lacked substance and that the redress sought had no merit. The decision of the Chief of the Army Staff was communicated to the Headquarters Southern Command Engineers' Branch, Pune, through a letter dated 20.11.2000 with a request to communicate the decision to the petitioner. Thereupon, the record officer in the record office of the Madras Engineer Group communicated the decision of the Chief of the Army Staff to the petitioner through a letter dated 02.12.2000. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had been discharged from service with effect from 01.08.2000 'on completion of his service/tenure/age limit under item 1 (i)(a) of the Table annexed to Army Rule 13(3)'.
3. Aggrieved by the rejection of the statutory complaint and his discharge from service, the petitioner filed the writ petition praying for quashing the order of discharge and for a direction to reinstate him in service with promotion to the rank of Subedar Major with effect from the day his juniors were promoted.
4. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
a) The respondents are directed to give a copy of the order of the Chief of the Army Staff on the basis of which the endorsement of rejection of the statutory complaint is issued to the petitioner.
b) The 2nd respondent, Chief of the Army is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh.
c) The petitioner shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing in the matter, as he has made the allegations of manipulations, fabrications and insertions. At this juncture, Sri Aravind Kumar quickly submits that neither the Army Act nor the Service Regulations for the Army personnel provide for the opportunity of personal hearing. But I am granting the opportunity of personal hearing considering that:
(i) the opportunity of personal hearing is not ousted by Army Act or the Service Regulations for the Army personnel.
(ii) the allegations of manipulations, fabrications, insertions and existence of unsigned reports cannot be proved or disproved without giving the petitioner an opportunity to show where and in which records or papers the same have taken place. However I hasten to add that the personal hearing is confined only to the aspect of the alleged manipulations, fabrications, insertions and the existence of unsigned documents. In all other respects, the processing of the statutory complaint shall be in a manner contemplated by respondents' Service Regulations.
(d) All the contentions are kept open. Ft is also open to the petitioner to submit such other documents and furnish such other information, as he deems fit within an outer limit of one month from today.
(e) Needless to observe that, if the order on the statutory complaint in the remanded matter goes against the petitioner, it is open to him to challenge it in appropriate proceedings.
(f) Considering the fact that the petitioner has been adjudicating his rights for the last six years, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the remanded matter within an outer limit of six months from today.
5. The respondents in the writ petition have filed this appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge. Sri Arvind Kumar learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that he has confined the challenge in the appeal only to the direction contained in (a) and (c) quoted above. In other words, the appellants have no objection in the statutory complaint being reconsidered by the Chief of the Army Staff and to take fresh orders.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right and justified in directing the Chief of the Army Staff to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh. Admittedly, the petitioner was refused promotion to the cadre of Subedar Major on the basis of his Annual Confidential Reports. The allegation of the petitioner was that the Annual Confidential Reports relied on by the Departmental Promotion Committee contained manipulations, insertions and technical errors. These allegations were contained in the statutory complaint filed by the petitioner. However, in the communications dated 20.11.2000 (Exhibit R-4) and 02.12.2000 (Exhibit R-5) it is not stated why the complaint of the petitioner was rejected. Though it is stated that the complaint lacked substance and that the redress sought had no merit, it is not explained how it lacked substance and why the redress sought had no merit. It is not stated whether the specific allegations of the petitioner that the Annual Confidential Reports relied on by the Departmental Promotion Committee contained manipulations, insertions and technical errors were found to be incorrect by the Chief of the Army Staff. When the petitioner makes specific allegations of manipulations and insertions in the Annual Confidential Report, he is entitled to know whether the allegation was looked into by the authority concerned and whether the allegation was found to be correct or incorrect In other words, he was entitled to receive a reasoned order regarding the rejection of his statutory complaint. The Exhibits-R4 and R5 communications cannot be said to be reasoned orders. Hence we concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that the statutory complaint of the petitioner should be reconsidered by the Chief of the Army Staff with reference to the specific allegations and averments contained in the complaint and that the petitioner should be given a reasoned order regarding the decision of the Chief of the Army Staff on the statutory complaint.
7. However, we are inclined to agree with the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the petitioner is not entitled to a personal hearing before taking a decision on his statutory complaint The learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that there is no provision in the Army Act or the Army Rules or the Service Regulations providing for a personal hearing to the complainant before taking a decision on the statutory complaint. This is not disputed by Col. Bhupinder Singh who appears for the writ petitioner. But Mr. Bhupinder Singh points out that a personal healing is not barred or excluded under the provisions of the Army Act, Army Rules or Service Regulations. Even assuming that personal hearing is not specifically barred or excluded under the provisions of the Act, Rules and the Service Regulations, a complainant cannot as a matter of right claim the right of personal hearing in the absence of statutory provisions providing for such personal hearing. It may be open to the authority concerned to give a personal hearing in a given case.
8. But neither the complainant can claim the right of personal hearing as a matter of right nor the Court can compel the authorities to give a personal hearing. Even though the learned Single Judge has mentioned certain reasons for granting the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, we do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as it would set a wrong precedent Since the Chief of the Army Staff has been directed to consider the statutory complaint afresh, there is no need for giving a copy of the earlier older of the Chief of the Army Staff to the petitioner as it has become irrelevant. The interests of the petitioner are well protected by the opportunity given to him to submit such other documents and furnish such other information as he deems fit within a period of one month. Therefore, we accept the contention of the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the impugned order requires to be modified by deleting the directions/orders contained in Clauses (a) and (c) of paragraph 8 of the impugned order.
9. Therefore, the writ appeal is disposed of in the following terms:
(i) The impugned order of the learned Single Judge will stand modified to the extent of setting aside the directions/orders contained in Clauses (a) and (c) of paragraph 8 of the order.
(ii) The period of six months given to the Chief of the Army Staff to dispose of the petitioner's statutory complaint afresh shall be counted from the date of this order.
(iii) The submission of the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner that the petitioner has submitted a further representation in terms of paragraph 8(d) of the impugned order within the stipulated period is recorded.
(iv) In the matter of communication of the complaint of the petitioner, the Chief of the Army Staff shall follow the provisions of Clause (17) of Para 364 of the Army Service Regulations.