Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2008 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 709 - SC - Indian LawsDepartmental proceeding against Inspector of the Railway Protection Force - suspension on the allegation that he made excess delivery of scrap - Full Bench of High Court held that Rule 153(8) is unreasonable and hence unconstitutional and accordingly it struck down Rule 153(8) - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that ordinarily in a domestic/departmental inquiry the person accused of misconduct has to conduct his own case vide N. Kalindi and others vs. M/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 the whole case law has been reviewed by this Court. Following the above decision it has to be held that there is no vested or absolute right in any charge-sheeted employee to representation either through a counsel or through any other person unless the statute or rules/standing orders provide for such a right. Moreover, the right to representation through some one, even if granted by the rules, can be granted as a restricted or controlled right. Refusal to grant representation through an agent does not violate the principles of natural justice. In the present case, Rule 153(8) only provides for assistance to a charge-sheeted employee by an agent. Thus, a restricted right of representation has been granted by Rule 153(8). Even if no right of assistance had been granted by the rules, there would be no illegality or unconstitutionality. How then can it be said that when a restricted right is granted, the said restricted right is unconstitutional. We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the Full Bench impugned judgment of the High Court and we are of the view that Rule 153(8) is constitutionally valid. Hence, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
|