LexTHE MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. versus K.V. RAMA REDDY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LID. A v. K.V. RAMA REDDY SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSJNGHPANTA,JJ.) B Service Law: National Seeds Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992-Rule 31(7)-Disciplinary proceedings-Right to representation to C delinquent employee by legal practitioner-Permissibility of-Held: Employee has no right to representation by legal practitioner or another person unless Rules provide for it-Disciplinary Authority may permit engagement of legal practitioner even if presenting officer is not legal practitioner having regard to the circumstances of the case-On facts, employee in better position to D explain factual aspects, no explanation as to how assistance of legal practitioner would be better, and also employee given an option to be assisted by another employee-Thus, no prejudice caused to employee by the refusal to engage legal practitioner. With regard to the assistance sought by the delinquent employee in the E departmental proceedings, Rule 31(7) of the National Seeds Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 permits assistance of any other employee working in a particular unit where charge sheeted employee was working; however, it prohibits engagement of a legal practitioner unless presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner or the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances F of the case. Respondent-employee against whom departmental proceedings were going on for misappropriation of huge amount, tiled writ petition challenging the Rule since it denied him an opportunity to avail services of the person of G his choice but the same was dismissed. Respondent then sought permission to engage legal practitioner but the same was refused. Respondent challenged the latter part of the Rule. High Court allowed the writ petition holding that even though presenting officer was not a legal practitioner, yet the disciplinary · authority could permit engagement of a legal practitioner having regard to 725 H 726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A the circumstances of the case. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I. The law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to B be heard and that an employee has no right to representation in the departmental proceedings by another person or a lawyer 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. The right to representation is available only to the extent specifically provided for in the Rules. (731-C-D[ c N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive and Engg. Co. ltd., AIR (1960) SC 914; Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 1392; Brooke Bond India (P) ltd. v. Subba Raman (S.) and Anr., (1961) 2 LLJ 417; Crescent Dyes and Chemicals ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993[ 2 SCC 115; Indian D Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association and Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 540 and Bharat Petroleum Corporation ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors., JT (1998) 8 SC 487, relied on. 1.2. Though it is correct that even if the presenting officer is not a legal practitioner, the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances E of the case may permit engagement of a legal practitioner. But it would depend upon the factual scenario. [731-G-H) 1.3. In the instant case, the reasons indicated by the respondent for the permission to engage legal practitioner were (a) the huge amount alleged to have been misappropriated, (b) number of documents and witnesses relied on F by the respondent, and (c) the prayer for availing services of the retired employee which was rejected and that the respondent was unable to get any assistance to get any other able co-worker. None of these factors are really relevant ror the purpose. He had to explain the factual position with reference to the documents sought to be utilized against him. A legal practitioner would G not be in a position to assist the respondent in this regard. It has not been shown as to how a legal practitioner would be in a better position to assist the respondent. As a matter of fact, the respondent would be in a better position to explain and throw light on the questio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.