2006 (9) TMI 564 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenged the legality of the judgment passed by High Court directing the Management of M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (Corporation) to consider afresh the respondent s prayer for being represented by a legal practitioner and decide whether same was acceptable or not - HELD THAT - We have seriously perused the judgment of the High Court which, curiously, has treated the decision of this Court in Crescent Dyes 1992 (12) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT as a decision in favour of the respondent No.1. The process of reasoning by which this decision has been held to be in favour of respondent No.1 for coming to the conclusion that he had a right to be represented by a person who, though an office-bearer of the Trade Union, was not an employee of the appellant is absolutely incorrect and we are not prepared to subscribe to this view. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the judgment passed by the High Court in so far as it purports to quash the order of the Appellate Authority, by which the Draft Standing Orders were certified, cannot be sustained. The position as afore-noted was reiterated in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Ors. 1998 (12) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT . Though it is correct, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondent, that even if the presenting officer is not a legal practitioner, the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case may permit engagement of a legal practitioner. But it would depend upon the factual scenario. Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation has brought to our notice office memorandum dated 21.11.2003 by which the prayer to engage a legal practitioner to act as a defence assistant was rejected. Reference was made to the rules, though no specific reference has been made to the discretion available to be exercised in particular circumstances of a case. The same has to be noted in the background of the basis of prayer made for the purpose. The reasons indicated by appellant for the purpose are (a) amount alleged to have been misappropriated is ₹ 63.67 lakhs (b) number of documents and number of witnesses are relied on by the respondent, and (c) the prayer for availing services of the retired employee has been rejected and the respondent is unable to get any assistance to get any other able co-worker. None of these factors are really relevant for the purpose of deciding us as to whether he should be granted permission to engage the legal practitioner. As noted earlier, he had to explain the factual position with reference to the documents sought to be utilized against him. A legal practitioner would not be in a position to assist the respondent in this regard. It has not been shown as to how a legal practitioner would be in a better position to assist the respondent so far as the documents in question are concerned. As a matter of fact, he would be in a better position to explain and throw light on the question of acceptability or otherwise and the relevance of the documents in question. The High Court has not considered these aspects and has been swayed by the fact that the respondent was physically handicapped person and the amount involved is very huge. As option to be assisted by another employee is given the respondent, he was in no way prejudiced by the refusal to permit engagement of a legal practitioner. The High Court s order is, therefore, unsustainable and is set aside. Appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of the judgment directing the Management to consider representation by a legal practitioner.
2. Interpretation of Rule 31(7) of the National Seeds Corporation Rules.
3. Right to representation in disciplinary proceedings.
4. Discretion of disciplinary authority to permit engagement of a legal practitioner.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the judgment of the Karnataka High Court directing the Management to reconsider the respondent's request for legal representation. The High Court allowed the writ petition, stating that the disciplinary authority could permit engagement of a legal practitioner based on the circumstances of the case. The appellant argued that there is no legal right to demand a legal practitioner in disciplinary proceedings. The respondent contended that while not a right, the disciplinary authority has discretion to allow legal representation.

2. Rule 31(7) of the National Seeds Corporation Rules was central to the dispute. It states that an employee cannot engage a legal practitioner unless the presenting officer is a legal practitioner or the disciplinary authority permits based on circumstances. The law in India does not grant an absolute right to representation in domestic enquiries unless specified in the rules or regulations governing disciplinary proceedings.

3. Precedents like N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd. and Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen establish that an employee has no inherent right to representation in departmental proceedings unless specifically provided for in the rules. The right to representation is limited to what is explicitly stated in the rules, such as Rule 1712 of the Railway establishment Code and Rule 14(8) of the Central Civil Services Rules.

4. The Supreme Court emphasized that the law does not guarantee representation by a legal practitioner in disciplinary proceedings unless the facts are complex. The judgment clarified that the High Court's decision, which allowed representation by a non-employee office-bearer of a Trade Union, was incorrect. The Court highlighted that the refusal to permit a legal practitioner was justified based on the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations and the availability of alternative assistance options.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The Court reiterated that while a legal practitioner's engagement is not a right, the disciplinary authority may permit it based on the factual scenario. The decision emphasized that the refusal to allow legal representation in this case was justified, considering the nature of the allegations and the available assistance options for the respondent.