2006 Supreme(SC) 923

2006(7) Supreme 581
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Arijit Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
The Management of National Seeds Corporation Ltd.—Appellant
versus
K.V. Rama Reddy—Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4335 of 2006
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17707 of 2004)
Decided on 29-9-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate, S. Barthakur, S. Pani, B. Barooah and Sunil K. Jain, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
An employee has no right to representation in the departmental proceedings by another person or a lawyer unless Service Rules specifically provided for the same.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Prayer for being represented by a legal practitioner in departmental enquiry—National Seeds Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992—Rule 31(7)—No absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard unless rules or regulations and standing orders if any recognized such a right and provided for such representation—Respondent working as Assistant Grade II with another officer were found responsible for huge loss because of misappropriation—Department proceedings were initiated and Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed—Respondent’s prayer to take assistance of a retired Asst. Manager was rejected—Writ against that order was dismissed—Respondent then asked for permission to take assistance of a legal practitioner and request was rejected—High Court allowed writ by observing that though presenting officer was not a legal practitioner, yet disciplinary authority could permit engagement of legal practitioner having regard to circumstances of the case—Appeal—Respondent had to explain factual position with reference to documents sought to be utilized against him and legal practitioner would not be in a position to assist him in that regard—High Court did not consider those aspects—Impugned order was liable to be set aside.

       Held : 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 be heard and that there is no right to representation by somebody else 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 (See N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd. (AIR 1960 SC 914), Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Workmen (AIR 1965 SC 1392), Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi (1993 (2) SCC 115), and Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers Association and Another (2001(9) SCC 540).(Paras 7)

       The basic principle is that an employee has no right to representation in the departmental proceedings by another person or a lawyer unless the Service Rules specifically provide for the same. The right to representation is available only to the extent specifically provided for in the Rules.(Paras 8)

       We have seriously perused the judgment of the High Court which, curiously, has treated the decision of this Court in Crescent Dyess case (supra) as a decision in favour of the respondent No.1. The process of reasoning by which this decision has been held to be in favour of respondent No.1 for coming to the conclusion that he had a right to be represented by a person who, though an office-bearer of the Trade Union, was not an employee of the appellant is absolutely incorrect and we are not prepared to subscribe to this view. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the judgment passed by the High Court in so far as it purports to quash the order of the Appellate Authority, by which the Draft Standing Orders were certified, cannot be sustained.(Para 15)

       The reasons indicated by appellant for the purpose are (a) amount alleged to have been misappropriated is Rs.63.67 lakhs (b) number of documents and number of witnesses are relied on by the respondent, and (c) the prayer for availing services of the retired employee has been rejected and the respondent is unable to get any assistance to get any other able co-worker. None of these factors are really relevant for the purpose of deciding us as to whether he should be granted permission to engage the legal practitioner. As noted earlier, he had to explain the factual position with reference to the documents sought to be utilized against him. A legal practitioner would 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 so far as the documents in question are concerned. As a matter of fact, he would be in a better position to explain and throw light on the question of acceptability or otherwise and the relevance of the documents in question. The High Court has not considered these aspects and has been swayed by the fact that the respondent was physically handicapped person and the amount involved is very huge. As option to be assisted by another employee is given the respondent, he was in no way prejudiced by the refusal to permit engagement of a legal practitioner. The High Courts order is, therefore, unsustainable and is set aside.(Para 18)