C. L. SUBRAMANIAM versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 15-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
C. l:,, SUBRAMANIAM . 
v. 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN 
February 15, 1972 
(K. S. HEGDE AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] 
485 
Art. 311 of the Constitution read with Central Civil Services (Con-
duct) Rules, 1955-Rule 12(1)'-Preventive ojJicer, Customs, purchased 
·taxis in the name of his wife after informing higher authorities-Whether 
vi~lation of rule 12(1) Central Civil Services .(Conduct) Rules 1955- · 
Whether denial of the assistance of a lawyer i• violation' of the Rule of th• 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1951. 
The appellant, a preventive officer, applied for permission to allow his 
wife to run a taxi service. He was informed that no permission was neces-
sary. Thereafter, appellant acting on behalf of his wife, purchased a few 
cars which wero used 'as tax.is. Later several complaints were made against 
him to the effect that he was canva.Ssing business for his wife. Enquiry was 
made and the appellant was served with a memorandum stating that while 
functioning as Preventive Officer he had contravened the prov:isions Of Rule . 
12(1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1955. The factual 
allegation made against. him was that, he canvassed business for his wife . 
. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. 
On enquiry the appellant was found 
guilty of contravening rule 12(1) of the Central Civil Service (Conduct) 
Rules 1955, and. his removal from service was recommended. 
On the 
basis of that: recommendation, the Disciplinary Authority served on the 
appellanj: a notice to show cause why he should not be removed from 
service. 
The appellant submitted his explanation; but the Disciplinary 
Authority was not satisfied and consequently, the appellant was removed 
from service. 
The appellant challenged the order by a writ petition which was dis· 
missed both by a single judge as well as by a Division Bench of the High 
Court. 
On appeal to this Court, it was contended by' the appellant that 
he was not given .a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of 
the charge levelled against· him and there was a violation of rule 15 of 
the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1957 
and Art. 311 df the Constitution. 'Hence the order of ,..emoval was bad 
in law 
One trained police prosecutor. was appointed as the officer tn 
present the case before the Enquiry Officer in support of the allegations 
made against the appellant. Therefore, the appellant wrote to the Dis· 
ciplinary Authority for permission to engage a counsel to defend 
his 
case, but even after a number of written requests, he was not given the 
permission to engage a legal practitioner to defend himself. 
Further, the 
appellant was denied . the assistance of a government servant.-
Allowing 
the appeal, 
HELD : ( i) In the facts and circumstances of the case, it was clear 
that the appellant bad not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to 
defend himself, 1be grievance of the appellant that he was pitted against 
a trained prosecutor w .. not considered by the Disciplinary authority. 
The fact that the case against the appellant was being bandied by a trained 
prosecutor w.. a good ground for allowing the appellant to engage a 
legal practitioner to defend him lest the scales should be weighted against 
3-L!031SupCJl72 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972] 3 S.C.R. 
him. 
The disqiplinary authority completely ipored that circumstance. 
A 
Therefore, that authority clearly failed to exercise the power con'ferred on 
it _under the rule. [490 GJ 
(ii) There had been a clear violation of rule 15(5) of the Central 
Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rul01 1<)57 which pro-
vides for the engi,igement of a legal practitioner in certain circumstances. 
The present case -required that the appellant be given a chance to defend 
B 
himself by a legal practitioner. Since he was denied such an opportunity, 
the order was bad and therefore, it should be struct down. J,4<)5 HJ 
Pet, v. Greyhound Racing Assn. Ltd., [1%8] 2 All E.R. 545; Kalindi 
& Ors. v. Tata Locomotive &, Engineering Co. Ltd, [1%0] 3 S.C.R. 407; 
Brooke Bond India Private Ltd. v. S11bba Ramman (S) & another, [1961] 
2 L.L.J. 417, discussed and distinguished. 
c 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11 of 
1971. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated 
March 26, 1970 of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 
197 of 1968. 
Appe/larlti appeared in person. 
Gobin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.