9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. 2. Right to representation and cross-examination in departmental proceedings. 3. Interpretation of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987: The main issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. The appellant, a Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force, was placed under suspension and sought to engage a friend to defend his case in departmental proceedings. Rule 153(8) stipulates that the charged member cannot bring a legal practitioner but may take assistance from a serving member of the Force as a "friend," who is not allowed to address the Inquiry Officer or cross-examine witnesses. The rule was challenged for being ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in matters of public employment. 2. Right to Representation and Cross-Examination in Departmental Proceedings: The appellant argued that the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses and make submissions through a friend violates the principles of natural justice. The court acknowledged that the right of cross-examination is a valuable right, essential for ensuring a fair trial. The court noted that several statutory rules permit representation by a friend, citing Rule 1712 of the Railway Establishment Code, which allows an accused railway servant to present his case with the assistance of another railway servant. The court emphasized that a friend is appointed mainly to cross-examine witnesses and advance arguments, and such a right cannot be taken away directly or indirectly. 3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions and Principles of Natural Justice: The court highlighted the importance of purposive interpretation, which aims to give effect to the legislative purpose. The court referenced multiple cases and legal principles to support the argument that statutes should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice and fair play. The court cited the Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless Company, emphasizing that interpretation must depend on the text and the context. The court also referred to the B.P. Corporation Limited v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, where it was held that the right to be represented by a co-employee in disciplinary proceedings is reasonable and fair. Judgment: The court concluded that the part of Rule 153(8) that denies the right of the friend to address the Inquiry Officer and cross-examine witnesses is unconstitutional. The court directed the respondents to allow the friend of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and make submissions on his behalf. The writ appeal was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.
|
