9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Legal Representation 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice 3. Validity of Domestic Enquiry Summary: 1. Denial of Legal Representation: The first respondent was charged with misconduct, and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Before the enquiry began, the first respondent requested permission to engage a legal practitioner for his defense, which was rejected by the Chairman of the appellant. Despite appointing two legally trained officers as Presenting Officers, the Chairman denied the first respondent's request for legal representation. Regulation 12(8) of the Bombay Port Trust Employees Regulations 1976, which came into force during the enquiry, allowed legal representation if the Presenting Officer was a legal practitioner or if the disciplinary authority permitted it. The refusal to review the decision after the regulation came into force was a point of contention. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The High Court quashed the dismissal order, holding that the refusal to allow legal representation violated the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court examined whether denying a delinquent employee legal representation, especially when the employer is represented by legally trained personnel, constitutes a denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend oneself. The Court noted that domestic enquiries, traditionally seen as managerial functions, have evolved, and the presence of legally trained personnel on one side necessitates similar representation for the delinquent employee to ensure fairness. 3. Validity of Domestic Enquiry: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the enquiry was vitiated due to the denial of legal representation. The Court emphasized that the presence of legally trained Presenting Officers for the employer, while denying the same to the delinquent employee, created an unfair and unjust situation. The Court also noted that the enquiry should have been reviewed after Regulation 12(8) came into force, which mandated legal representation under certain conditions. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed that the enquiry could be continued with the first respondent allowed legal representation, cross-examination of witnesses, and the opportunity to present fresh evidence. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the denial of legal representation to the first respondent, while the employer was represented by legally trained personnel, violated the principles of natural justice and vitiated the domestic enquiry. The Court directed that the enquiry could be continued with appropriate legal representation for the first respondent and other procedural safeguards to ensure a fair hearing.
|
