DINESH CHANDRA PANDEY versus HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 08-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 8 S.C.R. 37 
DINESH CHANDRA PANbEY 
V. 
HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2622 of 2005) 
JULY 8, 2010 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Judicial officer - Departmental Enquiry -
Charge for possessing disproportionate assets - A Judge 
appointed as Presenting Officer - Application of delinquent C 
for appointing legal practitioner for his. defence dismissed -
Found guilty in enquiry - Dismissal from service - Appeal, 
writ petition as well as LPA dismissed - On appeal, plea _that 
denial to engage legal practitioner violative of principles of 
natural ,'ustice and Civil Services Rules and that evidence was 
D 
not appreciated in its correct perspective - Held: Denial of 
engagement of legal practitioner was not violative of the 
principles of natural justice or the Rules - Permission for 
engagement of legal practitioner was not mandatory -
Engagement of 'legal practitioner' is permissible for delinquent E 
only if the Presenting Officer is a legal practitioner - A judge 
in service cannot be termed as a legal practitioner - Non-
production of witnesses and documents by the delinquent in 
support of his case leads to drawing adverse inference against 
him - On facts, delinquent has not approached the court with 
F 
clean hands - Judges are expected to apply stringent social 
and moral values to their standard of living - Finding of facts 
arrived at by authorities/courts below cannot be interfered with 
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 - M.P. Civil 
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 -
G 
r. 14(8) - Principles of natural justice - Interpretation of 
Statutes -
A,9vocates Act, 1961 -
s. 2(i) -
Central 
Administrative -Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 - r. 2(e) -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Judiciary. 
37 
H 
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(201 O] 8 S.C.R: 
A 
Interpretation of Statutes - Contextual interpretation -
Expression 'may' in a statute - Not essential, that it is always 
directory - It can be read as 'shall' in view of the legislative 
intent - However, in the instant case, expression 'may' in r. 
14(8) to be construed as directory - M.P. Civil Services 
B 
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - r. 14 (8). 
Words and Phrases - 'Legal practitioner' - Meaning of. 
Appellant-a Civil Judge was charged for possessing 
disproportionate assets to his known source of income. 
c In the course of departmental enquiry, he made an 
application for permission to engage a legal practitioner, 
which was declined. Enquiry Officer found him guilty of 
the charge. Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment 
of removal from service. Appeal against the order was 
0 
dismissed by the Governor. Writ petition as well as 
Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed. 
E 
F 
In the instant appeal, the impugned order was 
challenged mainly on two grQunds viz. denial of 
assistance of legal practitioner was in violation of 
principles of natural justice as well as M.P. Civil Services 
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966; and that 
Disciplinary Authority and the courts had not appreciated 
the evidence in its correct perspective. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The bare reading of Rule 14(8) of M.P. Civil 
Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 
shows that the Government servant may take the 
assistance of any other Government servant to represent 
G his case but may not engage a legal practitioner for the 
purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the 
authority is a 'legal practitioner' or the disciplinary 
authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, 
so permits. The expression 'may' cannot be read as 
H 
'shall'. The normal Rule is that a delinquent officer would 
DINESH CHANDRA PANDEY v. HIGH COURT OF 
39 
M.P. & ANR. 
be entitled to engage another officer to present his case. 
A 
But if the Presenting Officer is a 'legal practitioner', he 
may normally be permitted to engage a legal practitioner. 
The third category is where the disciplinary authority 
having regard to the circumstances of the case so 
·permits. It is, therefore, not absolutely mandatory that the 
B 
disciplinary authority should permit the engagement of 
a legal practitioner irrespective of the facts and 
circumstances of the case. There is some element of 
discretion vested with the authority which, has to be 
exercised properly and in accordance with the settled c 
principles of service jurisprude

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