1972 (2) TMI 102 - SC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
2. Compliance with Rule 15(5) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.
3. The right to engage a legal practitioner for defense.
4. The procedural fairness of the disciplinary enquiry.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself:
The appellant, a Preventive Officer, was charged with contravening Rule 12(1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955, for allegedly canvassing business for his wife's taxi service. During the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant requested permission to engage a legal practitioner, citing the complexity of the case and the presence of a trained police prosecutor, A. M. Sivaraman, presenting the case against him. Despite repeated requests, the Disciplinary Authority denied this permission, stating that Sivaraman was not a legal practitioner, thus overlooking the appellant's actual grievance. The Supreme Court found that the appellant was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as required under Article 311 of the Constitution, which guarantees a procedural safeguard for civil servants facing major penalties such as removal from service.

2. Compliance with Rule 15(5) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957:
Rule 15(5) allows a government servant to present his case with the assistance of another government servant or a legal practitioner if permitted by the Disciplinary Authority. The appellant's request to engage a legal practitioner was denied on the incorrect basis that Sivaraman was not a legal practitioner, ignoring the appellant's concern about facing a trained prosecutor. Additionally, the appellant's request for assistance from another government servant, Abraham Kurian, was not facilitated in time due to the Enquiry Officer's delay in communicating with the Superintendent of Post Offices. The Supreme Court concluded that there was a clear breach of Rule 15(5), which is mandatory and integral to ensuring a fair defense.

3. The right to engage a legal practitioner for defense:
The appellant argued that he had a right to engage a legal practitioner based on the agency theory, supported by the decision in Pet v. Greyhound Racing Association Ltd., where it was held that a person facing serious charges affecting reputation and livelihood is entitled to legal representation. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that the statutory rule in question specifically regulated the engagement of legal practitioners. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice apply when there is no statutory regulation, but in this case, the statutory rule was paramount.

4. The procedural fairness of the disciplinary enquiry:
The Supreme Court found that the procedural fairness of the enquiry was compromised due to the denial of reasonable opportunity for the appellant to defend himself. The Enquiry Officer's failure to facilitate the appellant's request for assistance from another government servant further demonstrated procedural unfairness. The Court held that the Disciplinary Authority's refusal to permit legal representation and the Enquiry Officer's indifferent attitude towards the appellant's request for assistance violated the procedural guarantees under Rule 15(5) and Article 311.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court struck down the impugned order of removal from service, finding that the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, and there was a clear breach of Rule 15(5). The Court directed that no fresh enquiry be held against the appellant and ordered his reinstatement to the position he would have held but for the impugned order. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was awarded costs from the respondents.