R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS matter which is listed for orders is heard finally by consent and disposed of by this order.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is an employee of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) the first respondent, working as divisional Traffic Officer in Mysore Division. An articles of charge dated 17-5-1991 (Annexure-A) was issued to him charging him with certain misconducts. The petitioner duly replied the said charges. Thereafter, on 27-11-1991 an enquiry was ordered against the petitioner and the third respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was commenced on 1-9-1992. At the hearing on 29-1-1993, it is stated that several witnesses were examined. After examination of six witnesses the petitioner made an application requesting for permission to engage a legal practitioner for his defence, relying on Regulation 23 (8) of the Karnataka State Road Transport corporation (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'), contending that the charges levelled against him were complicated and serious and for a proper and effective defence, it was necessary to engage a legal practitioner. This request was rejected by the Enquiry officer on 29-1-1993 on the ground that the rules do not permit engaging a legal practitioner and the presenting officer was not a person having any legal background.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER there were several sittings but it was only on 21-2-1994 further evidence was recorded. After examination of one of the witnesses, the petitioner gave an application stating that certain records were necessary for the purpose of examination and requested for their production by the employer. The Enquiry Officer rejected the said request on the ground that there is no provision authorising the Enquiry Officer to direct production of documents required by the charge-sheeted employee or to produce copies for perusal of the charge-sheeted employee.

( 4 ) AT this stage, the petitioner has filed this petition contending that the aforesaid decisions are arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. He seeks quashing of the enquiry proceedings dated 29-1-1993 rejecting the request to engage a legal practitioner and the proceedings dated 21-2-1994 rejecting the application calling for production of some documents (Vide Annexures E and G ). He has also sought a direction to the Inquiring Authority to reopen the inquiry and proceed with the same by permitting the petitioner to engage the services of a legal practitioner to defend him in the enquiry and by directing the first respondent to produce the documents sought by the petitioner.

( 5 ) THEREFORE the following points arise for consideration: (i)Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim that he should be permitted to engage the services of a Legal Practitioner to defend him in the inquiry; (ii) Whether rejection of request for production of documents is justified; (iii) Whether the progress of the enquiry could be interfered with on these grounds. Re: Point (i):

( 6 ) HAVING regard to the principles of natural justice, whether a delinquent employee is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner, was considered by the Supreme Court in Crescent dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v Ram Naresk Tripathi. The court held that the law in India does not concede an absolute right of representation as an aspect of the right to be heard, one of the elements of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court posed the following questions:"does then the right to be heard include the right to be represented through counsel or agent of the choice of the delinquent? If a domestic tribunal refuses permission to a delinquent appearing before it to be represented by an agent, would that amount to infringement of the rule of natural justice?"the Supreme Court answered the questions in the following manner:"there can be no doubt that a delinquent must be given an opportunity of presenting his case in such a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document