2008 (3) TMI 709 - SC - Indian Laws

Departmental proceeding against Inspector of the Railway Protection Force - suspension on the allegation that he made excess delivery of scrap - Full Bench of High Court held that Rule 153(8) is unreasonable and hence unconstitutional and accordingly it struck down Rule 153(8) - HELD THAT - It is well settled that ordinarily in a domestic/departmental inquiry the person accused of misconduct has to conduct his own case vide N. Kalindi and others vs. M/s. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Co. 1960 (3) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT . Such an inquiry is not a suit or criminal trial where a party has a right to be represented by a lawyer. It is only if there is some rule which permits the accused to be represented by someone else, that he can claim to be so represented in an inquiry vide Brook Bond India vs. Subba Raman 1961 (11) LLJ 417. Similarly, in Cipla Ltd. and others vs. Ripu Daman Bhanot and another 1999 (4) TMI 622 - SUPREME COURT it was held by this Court that representation could not be claimed as of right. This decision followed the earlier decision Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union 1998 (12) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT in which the whole case law has been reviewed by this Court. Following the above decision it has to be held that there is no vested or absolute right in any charge-sheeted employee to representation either through a counsel or through any other person unless the statute or rules/standing orders provide for such a right. Moreover, the right to representation through some one, even if granted by the rules, can be granted as a restricted or controlled right. Refusal to grant representation through an agent does not violate the principles of natural justice. In the present case, Rule 153(8) only provides for assistance to a charge-sheeted employee by an agent. Thus, a restricted right of representation has been granted by Rule 153(8). Even if no right of assistance had been granted by the rules, there would be no illegality or unconstitutionality. How then can it be said that when a restricted right is granted, the said restricted right is unconstitutional. We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the Full Bench impugned judgment of the High Court and we are of the view that Rule 153(8) is constitutionally valid. Hence, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues:
Constitutionality of Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The respondent, an Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, was suspended for alleged misconduct related to excess delivery of scrap. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him, during which he sought to engage a friend for his defense.

2. A writ petition was filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which was dismissed. A Writ Appeal was then filed, leading to a Full Bench of the High Court examining the constitutionality of Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.

3. The Full Bench held Rule 153(8) as unreasonable and unconstitutional, leading to its striking down. The rule prohibited a charge-sheeted employee from having a legal practitioner represent them during proceedings but allowed assistance from a serving member of the Force.

4. The specific challenge was against the clause in Rule 153(8) that barred the friend from addressing the Inquiry Officer or cross-examining witnesses, limiting their role to assisting in case preparation.

5. The Supreme Court emphasized that in domestic/departmental inquiries, the accused typically conducts their own case unless rules permit representation by another. Precedents were cited to establish that representation is not an absolute right and can be restricted or controlled by statute or rules.

6. Rule 153(8) was found to grant a restricted right of assistance to the charge-sheeted employee by an agent. The Court held that even without this right, there would be no illegality. Therefore, the restricted right granted by the rule was deemed constitutionally valid.

7. The Court disagreed with the Full Bench's judgment, concluding that Rule 153(8) was constitutionally valid. As a result, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment without any order as to costs.