1. Departmental enquiry — Denial of permission to engage a retired employee as defence assistant — Challenge to the refusal under staff regulations. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 878
1997(6) Supreme 508
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Food Corporation of India -Appellant
versus
Bant Singh & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4432 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6485 of 1997)
Decided on 7-7-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Y.P. Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Pradeep Gupta and K.K. Gupta, Advocates.
Important Points
Important Point
Where Rules provide for an employee to defend himself in departmental enquiry through employee of Corporation or Central Govt. or State Govt. employee, allowing retired employee to assist him, though not a legal practitioner, would in reality amounts to permitting retired employee to have regular practice which is wrong.
Where Rules provide for an employee to defend himself in departmental enquiry through employee of Corporation or Central Govt. or State Govt. employee, allowing retired employee to assist him, though not a legal practitioner, would in reality amounts to permitting retired employee to have regular practice which is wrong.
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA STAFF REGULATIONS: Reg.58(8), R.58(6)
SERVICE LAW: .
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
Service Law-Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations-Rule 58(6)-Departmental enquiry against delinquent-Employee is entitled to an opportunity to defend himself either in person or through employee of Corporation or of Central Government or State Government employee-Assistance of retired employee, though he was not legal practitioner prohibited to appear and assist delinquent, in reality amounted to permitting him to have regular practice-High Court committed error in giving such direction-However if enquiry was completed with assistance of retired employee, it need not be reopened. (Paras 4 & 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a delinquent employee is entitled to the assistance of a retired employee as a defence assistant in a departmental enquiry. (Para 3 )
3. Rule 58(8) permits assistance from current employees but prohibits legal practitioners; allowing retired employees to assist would effectively permit regular practice. (Para 4 )
4. A retired employee does not fall within the category of employees permitted to act as defence assistants under regulations prohibiting legal practitioners. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; however, as the enquiry is already completed, the High Court's direction is not interfered with. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Does the right to a defence assistant in a departmental enquiry include the right to engage a retired employee?
No. Under the relevant staff regulations, assistance is limited to current employees of the Corporation or Government. Allowing a retired employee to act as a defence assistant would effectively permit regular practice, which is prohibited. (Para 4 )
7. Will a departmental enquiry be reopened if it was completed based on an erroneous court direction?
Not necessarily. If the enquiry has already been completed pursuant to a court's direction, the court may decline to interfere with that direction to avoid the necessity of reopening the proceedings. (Para 5 )
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 19.12.1996 made in CWP No. 18160 of 1996.
3. The admitted position is that pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 1.6.1997 issued to the respondent, on 20.11.1996, the Enquiry officer rejected permission to the respondent to engage Shri Kamal Kumar, a retired employee, as a defence assistant in the enquiry. The respondent was asked to appear either in person or through an employee of the Corporation or a Central Government or the State Government employee to defend himself. The respondent did not appear. On the other hand, he filed a writ petition in the High Court contending that he is entitled to the assistance of a retired employee of the Food Corporation of India. The High Court allowed the writ petition with direction to the corporation to allow the respondent to engage the retired employee as defence assistance. The question is: whether the High Court is right in giving the direction? It is true that in an enquiry conducted by the Department, the delinquent is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to defend himself including the assistance of the employee of the Corporation or of the Central Government or the State Government employee. Rule 58(8) of the FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA STAFF REGULATIONS , which postulates as under :
"58(8). The employee may take the assistant of any other employee of the Corporation or any State of Central Government employee to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits."
4. A reading thereof would clearly indicate that an employee is entitled to an opportunity to defend himself either in person or through and employee of the Corporation or of the Central Government or the State Government employee, in the departmental enquiry conducted against the delinquent. A legal practitioner is prohibited to appear before the Disciplinary Authority. Under these circumstances, a direction given by the High Court to allow the respondent to take the assistance of a retired employee, though he is not a legal practitioner who is prohibited to appear and assist the delinquent, in reality amounts to permitting the retired employee to have regular practice. The High Court has committed an error in giving such a direction.
5. However, It is stated that pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the assistance of a retired employee was already given and the enquiry was completed. If that is so, the enquiry need not be reopened. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not want to interfere with the directions given by the High Court.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
********
