TMI Blog1972 (2) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive Officer, Grade II, Cochin Customs House, during the period June 1962 to January 31, 1963 he had contravened the provisions of rule 12(1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. The factual allegation made against the appellant was that he canvassed business for his wife. He was told that an enquiry will be held against him on the basis of that charge. Sri H. T. Soares, Assistant Collector, Customs House, Cochin was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. During the pendency of the enquiry an additional ground in support of the charge was served on the appellant to the effect that he himself was running the taxi service. After enquiry the Enquiry Officer came to the, conclusion that the allegations made against the appellant were established and consequently he was guilty of contravening rule 12(1) of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1955. The Enquiry Officer recommended appellant s removal from service. On the basis of that recommendation the Disciplinary Authority served on the appellant a notice to show cause why he should not be removed from service. The appellant submitted his explanation. But the same was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 1963, one A. M. Shivaraman was appointed as the officer to present the case before the Enquiry Officer in support of the allegations made against the appellant. The said Shivaraman was a trained police prosecutor. After he was appointed to present the case in support of the allegations made against the appellant, the appellant wrote to the Collector of Customs, Cochin, the Disciplinary Authority on October 4, 1963 as follows : From : C. L. Subramanlam, Preventive Officer, Customs House, Cochin-3. TO The Collector of-Customs, Customs House, Cochin-3. Sir, Sub : Sec. 1/63 Estt-Cus dated 30th September 1963. In the above memorandum it is stated in paragraph 4, that Shri A. M. Sivaraman as the officer to present the case in support of theallegations against me before the Enquiry Officer. I understand that Shri A. M. Sivaraman is legally trained to conduct such prosecutions. Under such circumstances I will be prejudiced in my defence- unless I am permitted to engage a counsel to appear and defend me during the enquiry. Hence I request that permission be accorded to engage a lawyer of my choice to represent and defen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I have to deal with firmly in discharging my duties as a Preventive Officer, all these when considered can lead you to the only conclusion that if I am denied the assistance of an experienced counsel at the enquiry it would be tantamount to denial of an opportunity to defend myself and prove my innocence. This would be particularly so in the context of the present enquiry where evidence have sought to be brought in by different stages and alleged incidents subsequent to the charges are sought to be proved in support of the allegations made before such incidents. Despite these communications, the appellant was not give permission to engage a legal practitioner to defend himself. Therefore the question arises whether the appellant was give reasonable opportunity to defend himself in accordance with sub rule (5) of rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. The portion of that rule that is relevant for our present purpose is the last clause which say that the Government servant may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose mentioned in that clause unless the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such an inquiry allowed the trainer to be present, to hear the evidence and to have an opportunity to question witnesses. The trainer sought to be represented by counsel and solicitor at the enquiry but the track stewards decided ultimately not to allow legal representation. On appeal from the grant of an interlocutory injunction restraining the inquiry from being held unless the trainer were allowed to be represented, the Court of Appeal held that prima facie the trainer was entitled to an oral hearing and, the inquiry being one of serious importance to him, to be represented as it by counsel and solicitor, for he was entitled not only to appear himself but also to appoint an agent on his behalf, and so was entitled to appoint lawyers to represent him. Lord Denning, M. R. who delivered the main judgment of the court in the course of his judgment dealing with the decision of stewards that they will not hear lawyers observed I cannot accept this contention. The plaintiff is here facing a serious charge. He is charged either with giving the dog drugs or with not exercising proper control over the dog so that someone else drugged it. If he is found guilty, he may be suspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled to have the assistance of a legal practitioner. This contention is without force. In those cases this Court considered, whether a person proceeded against in an enquiry before a domestic tribunal had a right to be represented by someone else on the basis of the principles of natural justice. Therein this Court was not called upon to consider either the limits of the reasonable opportunity to defend oneself, guaranteed under Art. 311 or the scope of a statutory rule. The question that falls for decision in this case did not arise for decision in those cases. The appellant supported his complaint of breach of rule 15 (5) on yet another ground. After the appellant s request for engaging a counsel was rejected, he requested the Disciplinary Authority to let him have the assistance of Abraham Kurian, clerk, Cochin Head Post Office, Cochin-1. This request he appears to have made long before the date of enquiry i.e. December 5, 1963. He had also requested the Disciplinary Authority to move the superiors of Abraham Kurian to grant permission to Abraham Kurian to assist him. But it appears the Disciplinary Authority wrote to the Superintendent of Post Offices who is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rming that the enquiry was to have been held from 5-12-1963 was received by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices only on 5th December, 1963, and therefore the relief arrangement could not be made by him. Now that the enquiry is adjourned it is requested that you may be good enough to inform the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Trichur (Superior Officer of the Government who assists me) sufficiently early as to the date of the enquiry, so that he may relieve the Government servant in time. It is humbly pointed out that unless your goodself take necessary action in time in this regard it may not be possible to get me the assistance I have requested for. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 9-12-63 (C. L. Subramaniam) Even after getting this letter, the Enquiry Officer did not fix the date of the enquiry. It appears that on December 30, 1963 the Enquiry Officer fixed January 8, 1964 as the date of enquiry. It is only thereafter he wrote to the Superintendent of Post Offices requesting him to permit Abraham Kurian to assist the appellant. It is not known when that letter was received by the Superintendent of Post Offices but Abraham Kurian did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
