9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal No. 139 of 1998. 2. The respondent was an Inspector of the Railway Protection Force. He was placed under suspension on 18.9.1995 on the allegation that he made excess delivery of scrap worth about ₹ 10,000/-. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in which he was given opportunity of hearing in which he sought to engage a friend to defend his case. 3. A writ petition was filed before the Learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which was dismissed. Against that judgment a Writ Appeal was filed, and the matter was referred to a Full Bench of the High Court for deciding the constitutionality of Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and cross examine the witnesses, if he so desires. 6. It may be stated that Rule 153.10 (b) states that if the evidence is oral, the charge-sheeted employee shall be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. Thus, it is not that no right of cross-examination has been granted at all in the Inquiry. However, this cross-examination must be done by the charge-sheeted employee himself and not by his friend. Similarly, arguments before the Inquiry Officer can only be advanced by the chargesheeted employee and not by his friend. 7. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Full Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment is not correct. 8. It is well settled that ordinarily in a domestic/departmental inquiry the person acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
