9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 misappropr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecause of misappropriation by them. Accordingly complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ganganagar, Bangalore. Simultaneously departmental proceedings were initiated by issuing charge sheets proposing major penalty. The departmental proceedings were initiated on 12.3.2003. On 16.4.2003 Inquiry Officer and Presiding Officer were appointed to inquire into the charges framed as the respondent denied the charges. Respondent sought permission of the disciplinary authority to take assistance of one Shri V. Vishwanathan who was a retired Assistant Manager of the Corporation. The prayer to take his assistance was rejected by the Corporation, in view of Rule 31(7) of National Seeds Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 (in short the Rules ). Respondent challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No.28503 of 2003 before the Karnataka High Court. Challenge was made to legality of Rule 31(7) of the Rules on the ground that the provision denied opportunity to a delinquent employee to avail services of the person of his choice. The High Court did not accept the contention and dismissed the writ petition. After the dismissal of the writ petition, responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case on his behalf but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner or the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. 6 . The law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that there is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such representation (See N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive Engg. Co. Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 914), Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 1392), Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi (1993 (2) SCC 115), and Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers Association and Another (2001(9) SCC 540). 7. The basic principle is that an employee has no right to representation in the departmental proceedings by another person or a lawyer unless the Service Rules specifically provide for the same. The right to representation is available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Government as regards the procedure to be followed in enquiries against their own employees. No provision is made in these rules that the person against whom an enquiry is held may be represented by anybody else. When the general practice adopted by domestic tribunals is that the person accused conducts his own case, we are unable to accept an argument that natural justice demands that in the case of enquiries into a charge-sheet of misconduct against a workman he should be represented by a member of his Union. Besides it is necessary to remember that if any enquiry is not otherwise fair, the workman concerned can challenge its validity in an industrial dispute. Our conclusion therefore is that a workman against whom an enquiry is being held by the management has no right to be represented at such enquiry by a representative of his Union; though of course an employer in his discretion can and may allow his employee to avail himself of such assistance. (Emphasis supplied) 9. In another decision, namely, Dunlop Rubber Company s case (supra), it was laid down that there was no right to representation in the disciplinary proceedings by another person unless the Service Rules speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factual scenario. 11. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
