D.G. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. versus K. RAGHURAM BABU

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 752 · Decided: 03-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 752 
i' ~ 
A 
D.G. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. 
•;.
v. 
K. RAGHURAM BABU 
j._
(Civil Appeal No. 3964 of 2002) 
B 
MARCH 3, 2008 
[H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
,( • 
Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 -
r. 153(8) -
Assistance to charge sheeted employee by agent-friend under 
c r. 158(8) - However, friend not allowed to address Inquiry 
Officer nor cross-examine witnesses - Constitutional validity 
,.
of - Held: Rule 153(8) grants restricted right of representation 
\ .....
- Even if right of assistance is not granted by the Rule, there 
would be no illegality - Thus, Rule 153(8) is constitutionally 
D valid. 
The respondent-employee was placed under· 
)--
suspension for committing misconduct. Departmental 
proceeding was initi~ed against the respondent. He was 
given opportunity of hearing in which he sought to 
E engage a friend to defend his case. In terms of Rule 153(8) 
of the Railway ~rotection Force Rules, 1987 such friend 
was not allowed to address the Inquiry Officer nor cross-
examine the witn'ess. Respondent challenged the 
constitutionality of Rule 153(8). The Full Bench of High 
, 
... 
f' 
F Court held that the Rule 153(8) was unconstitutional, and 
\ 
struck it down. Hence.the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 There is no vested or absolute right in any 
G 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 
H 
752 
D.G. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. v. 
K. RAGHURAM BABU [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] 
753 
restricted or controlled right. Refusal to grant A 
representation through an agent does not violate the 
principles of natural justice. (Para 10) [756-A, B] 
1.2 Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 
1987 only provides for assistance to a charge-sheeted 
employee by an agent. Such friend is not allowed to B 
address the Inquiry Officer nor to cross-examine the 
witnesses. 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. It cannot be said C 
that when a restricted right is granted, the said restricted 
right is unconstitutional. Therefore, the Rule 153(8) is 
constitutionally valid. The view taken by the Full Bench 
of the High Court in the impugned judgment is not correct 
and is set aside. (Paras 5, 7, 11, 12 and 13) [755-A, D; D 
7.56-C, D, E] 
Cipla Ltd. and others vs. Ripu Daman Bhanot and 
another 1999(4) sec 188 - relied on 
N.K. Kalindi and others vs. Mis. Tata Locomotive and E 
Engineering Co.Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 914; Brook Bond India vs. 
Subba Raman 1961 (11) LLJ 417; Bharat Petroleum 
Corporation Ltd. s. Maharashtra General Kamgar Unidn 
1999(1) sec 626 - referred to. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3964 
F 
of 2002 
From the Order dated 7.9.2001 of the High Court of Andhra·. 
Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 1397/1998. 
Dr. R.G. Padia, Shipra Ghose, B.K. Prasad and A nil Katiyar G 
for the Appellants. 
'i' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. This appeal by special leave 
has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.9.2001 
H 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 3 S.C.R. 
A of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 139 of 
1998. 
2. The respondent was an Inspector of the Railway 
Protection Force. He was placed under suspension on 
18.9.1995 on the allegation that he made excess delivery of 
B · scrap worth about Rs.10,000/-. A departmental proceeding was 
initiated against him in which he was given opportunity of hearing 
in which he sought to engage a friend to defend his case. 
3. A writ petition was filed before the Learned Single Judge 
c of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which was dismissed. Against 
that judgment a Writ Appeal was filed, and the matter was 
referred to a Full Bench of the High Court for deciding the· 
constitutionality of Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force 
Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which have 
0 been made under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
4. The Full Bench held that Rule 153(8) is unreasonable 
and hence un-constitutional and accordingly it struck down Rule 
153(8). Against that judgment of the Full Bench this appeal has 

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