Judgment

Special leave granted.

2. We heard Mr. F. S. Nariman for the appellant and Dr. Y. S. Chitale for the first respondent. With the consent of parties we proceed to dispose of the appeal.

3. A charge-sheet was drawn-up against the first respondent for the alleged misconduct and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold the enquiry against the first respondent. Before the enquiry opened, the first .respondent submitted a request seeking permission to engage a legal practitioner for his defence. The Chairman of the appellant rejected this request and simultaneously appointed two officers, namely, Shri R. K. Shetty and Shri A. B. Chaudhary, Legal Adviser and Junior Assistant Legal Adviser respectively of the appellant as Presenting Officers before the Enquiry Officer. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the first respondent with a foot note that his request for permitting him to appear through a legal practitioner in the enquiry has been rejected by the Chairman. As a sequel to the rejection of his request, the first respondent out of compelling necessity submitted a request that Shri V. V. Nadkarni, be permitted to appear in his defence which appears to have been granted. The enquiry opened on April 13, 1976. On May 8, 1976 Bombay Port Trust Employees Regulations 1976 came into force. Regulation 12 (8) reads as under :

"12(8): The employee may take the assistance of any other employee or, if the employee is a Class III or a Class IV employee, of an "Office Bearer" as defined in Clause (d) of Section 2 of the Trade Unions Act. 1926 (16 of 1926) of the union to which he belongs, to present the ease on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the said 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. It may be mentioned that the date on which the aforementioned regulation came into force, the second out of 25 witnesses for the employer was in the witness box. It may as well be mentioned that even after the Regulation 12 (8) came into force, neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Chairman of the appellant thought fit to review the earlier decision so as to enable the first respondent to appear through a legal practitioner. At the end of the enquiry, the first respondent was dismissed from service.

5. The first respondent challenged the legality and validity of the order of dismissal in Misc. Petition No. 705 of 1979 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. A learned single Judge of the High Court by his judgment and order dated September 13, 1982 quashed and set aside the order of dismissal, inter alia, holding that while appointing two Presenting Officers both legally trained the Chairman of the appellant failed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the first respondent to defend himself by refusing him permission to appear through a legal practitioner and the principles of natural justice are violated. An appeal being O. O. C. J. 594 of 1982 by the appellant was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of that High Court. Hence this appeal by Special leave.

6. We were not inclined to grant leave to appeal in this case, but as we want to clear a legal misconception we thought fit to hear learned counsel on either side and to dispose of this appeal by a short judgment.

7. The narrow question which we propose to examine in this appeal is whether where in a disciplinary enquiry a domestic tribunal, the employer complaining misconduct appoints legally trained person as Presenting-cum-Prosecuting Officer the denial or refusal, of a request by the delinquent employee seeking permission to engage a legal practitioner to defend him at the enquiry, would constitute such denial of reasonable opportunity to defend oneself and thus violate one of the essential principles of natural justice which would vitiate the enquiry

8. The time honoured and traditional approach is that a domestic