Judgment

ARUIT PASAYAT, J.-

1.Leave granted.

2. The appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court directing the management of M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") to consider afresh the respondent's prayer for being represented by a legal practitioner and decide whether the same was acceptable or not.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The respondent was working as Assistant Grade II, Area Office at Hassan, Karnataka. It was noticed that the respondent and one G. Ansar Pasha, Seed Officer (formerly Area Manager of the Corporation, Hassan) were responsible for huge loss of more than Rupees 63 lakhs because of misappropriation by them. Accordingly complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ganganagar, Bangalore. Simultaneously departmental proceedings were initiated by issuing charge-sheets proposing major penalty. The departmental proceedings were initiated on 12-3-2003. On 16-4-2003 the inquiry officer and the Presiding Officer were appointed to inquire into the charges framed as the respondent denied the charges. The respondent sought permission of the disciplinary authority to take assistance of one Shri V. Vishwanathan who was a retired Assistant Manager of the Corporation. The prayer to take his assistance was rejected by the Corporation, in view of Rule 31 (7) of the National Seeds Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 (in short "the Rules"). The respondent challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No. 28503 of 2003 before the Karnataka High Court. Challenge was made to legality of Rule 31 (7) of the Rules on the ground that the provision denied opportunity to a delinquent employee to avail services of the person of his choice. The High Court did not accept the contention and dismissed the writ petition. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent made a representation on 15-112003 for permission to take assistance of a legal practitioner. The said request was turned down by order dated 21-11-2003. Against the said order the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 50793 of 2003, again challenging that part of the Rule, which permitted engagement of a legal practitioner only when 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 permitted. Counter-affidavit was filed by the Corporation taking the stand that the same issues were earlier raised in the previous writ petition which was dismissed. The High Court allowed the writ petition by observing that even though presenting officer was not a legal practitioner, yet the disciplinary authority could permit engagement of a legal practitioner having regard to the circumstances of the case.

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant Corporation submitted that the law relating to engagement of legal practitioner in a disciplinary proceeding is too well settled. The High Court accepted that there was no legal right to ask for engagement of a legal practitioner. Having accepted this legal position, the High Court erred in holding that disciplinary authority taking into account the factual scenario could permit engagement of legal practitioner. In fact no question of law was involved in the departmental proceedings. The allegations related to misappropriation and the factual position was within the knowledge of the respondent. It has not been explained to us as to how a legal practitioner would be in a better position to assist the delinquent officer in respect of the factual aspects.

5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though engagement of legal practitioner cannot be demanded as a matter of right yet a discretion is vested in the disciplinary authority to permit engagement of a legal practitioner having regard to the circumstances of the case.

6. The riva