J.K. AGGARWAL versus HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 05-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
J.K. AGGARWAL 
v. 
HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. 
AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.) 
Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952-
Rule 7(5)-Charges likely to result in dismissal of delinquent Govern-
ment servant in inquiry-Representation by counsel whether permitted 
A 
B 
in the disciplinary proceeding. 
C 
Civil 
Service-Disciplinary proceeding-Presenting Officer 
trained in /aw-Denial of representation by counsel to delinquent 
Government servant-Violates natural justice. 
Words and Phrases-' Legal Adviser', 'Lawyer'-Con_truction of. 
A disciplinary Inquiry was Initiated against the appellant, who 
~ 
was the Company Secretary of the Corporation on certain charges 
which if established might lead \o his dismissal from service. 
Inquiry-Authority, rejected the appellant's prayer made at the 
initial· stage of the Inquiry for permission to engage the services of a 
lawyer. 
Before the High Court, appellant challenged the Inquiry pruceed-
lngs on grounds of denial of natllral justice. 
The High Court dismissed the Writ-Petition in-limine against 
which this appeal was f'ded. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The right of repreaentadon by a lawyer may not In aU 
cases be held to be a part of natural justice. No general principle valid In 
all cases can be enunciated. [I.SC-DJ 
In the present-case, the matter Is guided by the Provisions of Rule 
7(5) of the CivilSer:vfces(Ponlshment& Appeal) Rules, 1952. [17C] 
13 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
The Rule Itself recognises that where the charges are so serious as 
A 
to entail a dismissal from service, the Inquiry-authority may permit the 
services of a lawyer. This rule Vests a discretion. In the matter on 
exercise of this discretion one of the relevant factors Is whether there Is 
likelihood of the combat being unequal entailing a miscarriage or 
failure of justice and a denial of a real and reasonable opportunity for 
B 
defence by reason of the appellant being pitted against a presenting-
officer, wholstrainedlnlaw. [17G-H, ISA] 
In the Inquiry, the Respondent-Corporation was represented by 
its Personnel and Administration Manager, who Is stated to be a man of 
law. Moreover, appellant, it is claimed, has had no legal background. 
The refusal of the service of a lawyer, In the facts of this case, results In 
C denial of natural justice. [17G, 18G] 
Pett v. Grehound Ra/ing Association Ltd., [1969] 1QB125; Petfs 
case No. 2, 1970( 1) QB 46: Enderby Town Football Club Ltd. v. 
Football Association Ltd., [1971] Chancery Div. 591; C.L. Subrah-
D · maniam v. Collector of Customs, Cochin, [1972] 3 SCR 485, referred. 
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Di/ip Kumar, [1983] l 
SCR 828, followed. 
2. Legal Adviser and a lawyer are for this purpose somewhat 
E liberally construed and must Include "whoever assists or advises on 
facts and In law must be deemed to be In the position of a legal 
adviser." [18A-B] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4632 
of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.1.1990 of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 13704 of 1989. 
M.K. Garg for the Appellant. 
G 
Vishnu Mathur and Ms. Madhu Tewatia for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
We have heard Sri Lekhi, learned Senior Advocate for the appel-
lant and Sri Tewatia, learned Senior Counsel for the first-Respondent. 
H 
Special leave granted. 
) 
l.K. AGGARWAL v. H.S.D.C. 
15 
2. Appellant was the Company Secretary of the Haryana Seeds 
Development Corporation Ltd., a Government Company. The short 
question in this appeal is whether in the course of the disciplinary 
inquiry initiated against the appellant by the Corporation on certain 
charges, which if established might lead to appellant's dismissal from 
service, appellant was entitled to engage the services of a legal-
practitioner in the conduct of his defence. The proceedings in the 
inquiry attract and are regulated by the Haryana Civil Services 
(Punishment. and Appeal) Rules, 1952. 
Inquiry-Authority, by his order dated 8.8.1989 rejected the prayer 
made by the appellant even at the initial stage of the inquiry for 
permission to engage the services of a lawyer. Before the High Court, 
appellant challenged the proceedings in the inquiry on grounds of 
denial of natural justice. The High Court dismissed the Writ-Petition 
in-limine. 
A 
B 
c 
3.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.