9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') to consider afresh the respondent's prayer for being represented by a legal practitioner and decide whether same was acceptable or not. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent was working as Assistant Grade II Area Office at Hassan, Karnataka. It was noticed that the respondent and one G. Ansar Pasha, Seed officer (formerly Area Manager of the Corporation, Hassan) were responsible for huge loss of more than Rs. 63 lakhs because 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed by the Corporation taking the stand that the same issues were earlier raised in the previous writ petition which was dismissed. The High Court allowed the writ petition by observing that even though presenting officer was not a legal practitioner, yet the disciplinary authority could permit engagement of a legal practitioner having regard to the circumstances of the case. 4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation submitted that the law relating to engagement of legal practitioner in a disciplinary proceeding is too well settled. The High Court accepted that there was no legal right to ask for engagement of a legal practitioner. Having accepted this legal position, the High Court erred in holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stic 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an act should have the assistance of some person, who even if not a lawyer may be expected to examine and cross-examine witnesses with a fair amount of skill. We have to remember however in the first place that these are not enquiries in a court of law. It is necessary to remember also that in these enquiries, fairly simple questions of fact as to whether certain acts of misconduct were committed by a workman or not only fall to be considered, and straightforward questioning which a person of fair intelligence and knowledge of conditions prevailing in the industry will be able to do will ordinarily help to elicit the truth. It may often happen that the accused workman will be best suited, and fully able to cross examine the witnesses who h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r again came to be considered by a three- Judge Bench of this Court in Crescent Dyes's case (supra), Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) in the context of Section 22(ii) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, as also in the context of domestic enquiry, upheld the statutory restrictions imposed on delinquent's choice of representation in the domestic enquiry through an agent. The earlier decisions in N. Kalindi's case (supra); Dunlop Rubber Company's case (supra) and Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd. v. Subba Raman (S.) and another, (1961 (2) LLJ417), were followed and it was held that the law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee as part of his right to be heard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g regard to the circumstances of the case may permit engagement of a legal practitioner. But it would depend upon 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 Rs. 63.67 lakhs (b) number of documents and number of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
