PTI
 
Nagpur, Nov 5: India suffered a huge jolt ahead of the fourth and final Test against Australia with the ICC Appeals Commissioner upholding Gautam Gambhir's Gautam Gambhir acknowledges the crowd after scoring a double century during the third Test between India and Australia.

The ICC Commissioner Justice Albie Sach's decision not to overturn the one-match ban, slapped by Match Referee Chris Broad, has been conveyed to the Indian cricket Board which has refused to accept the ruling.

"The Board of Control for Cricket in India has received today the order of Justice Sachs, Appeals Commissioner, on the appeal of Gautam Gambhir against the decision of Chris Broad, ICC Match Referee imposing a one-Test ban against him. The Appeals Commissioner has rejected the appeal and upheld the penalty of one-Test ban imposed by the ICC Match Referee", the BCCI secretary N Srinivasan said in a statement.

The BCCI, however, said that that order had been passed without giving the player an opportunity of personal hearing and legal representation.

"The order has been passed without affording the player an opportunity of personal hearing, legal representation and without acceding to his request for certain documents/recordings to be given to him and also denying him an extension of time", Srinivasan said.

"On receipt of the order, the Board has refused to accept the decision of the Appeals Commissioner and has sent its objection to the same to ICC", he said.

Gambhir, who has been the most successful Indian batsman with 427 runs to his credit in five innings in the series so far, will not be able to play the fourth and final Test beginning on Thursday, a prospect which will weaken the Indian batting to a great extent.

Tamil Nadu opener M Vijay, who has been quite impressive in the domestic circuit, has been drafted into the Indian squad as Gambhir's replacement.

The Delhi opener had elbowed Watson while taking a run on the opening day of the third Test match after a heated exchange with the Aussie all-rounder.

"The decision to find Gambhir guilty of a level 2 offence is indicative of the fact that any degree of physical contact is unacceptable," Broad had said while imposing the punishment.

The Indian opener decided to appeal against the ban and the ICC appointed Justice Sachs to hear the appeal against the punishment. Gambhir was eligible to play the match pending the decision.

Justice Sachs is a senior judge on the Constitutional Court of South Africa and is Cricket South Africa's appointment on the ICC Code of Conduct Commission.

Incensed by the decision, the BCCI shot off a letter to the ICC president, expressing its strong resentment in the way the matter was handled.

"I have to state that the said order of the Appeals Commissioner seems to be pre-decided as the same has been passed without affording the player an opportunity of a personal hearing" BCCI secretary N Srinivasan said in his letter.

"Gambhir had made a written request for a personal hearing, legal representation and had also requested for certain documents, recordings regarding the incident.

"The time granted under the rules to the player to file the appeal is 48 hours and Gambhir had within the said period requested for all of the above. None of the above documents, recordings have been provided to Gambhir and nor had he been given opportunity of personal hearing or legal representation" he said.

Srinivasan said the decision was a violation of principles of natural justice and penalising the player without giving him an opportunity to defend, this could jeopardise his career.

"It is submitted that while violating the rules of natural justice and denying the player the opportunity of oral hearing and legal representation and also denying him documents/recordings requested by him, the Appeals Commissioner has not given reasons for such denial and has made a bald statement that it was unclear if acceding to the request of the player for the above would contribute in any material way to a better resolution of this matter", he said.

"It is also further submitted that the Appeals Commissioner does not have the right to pre-decide the submissions which would have been made on behalf of Gambhir which is what the appeals commissioner has done in the present case", Srinivsan said.

"By deciding the appeal in a hurry without hearing the player serious damage/prejudice has been caused to Gambhir as the order is a permanent blot on him which has the potential of damaging a bring and successful career", he said.

Thus penalising the player without according him a personal hearing causes serious prejudice to the player which cannot be remedied as no further appeal is provided under the rules.

"It is therefore submitted that the order of the Appeals Commissioner is in violation of the mandatory provisions of the rules and principles of natural justice.

"Therefore the Board of Control for Cricket in India doesn't accept the decision of the Appeals Commissioner and objects to the same", he said.