The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to legal representation in a domestic enquiry can be restricted by statutory provisions, rules, or regulations, and the seriousness and complexity of the charges are relevant factors for determining the entitlement to legal representation.

TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THE only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case entitled to be represented by a lawyer in the domestic enquiry initiated against him by the respondent-company. That representation in a domestic enquiry by a legal practitioner is not a component of the principles of natural Justice is no longer res integra having been authoritatively settled by a large number of judgments of the apex court including the one in crescent dyes and Chemicals Limited v Ram Naresh Tripathi, Where upon an elaborate review of the case law on the subject, the Supreme Court summed up the legal position thus:"it is, therefore, clear from the above case law that the right to be represented through counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or regulated by statute, rules, regulations or standing orders. A delinquent has no right to be represented through counsel or agent unless the law specifically confers such a right. The requirement of the Rule of natural justice insofar as the delinquent's right of hearing is concerned, cannot and does not extend to a right to be represented through counsel or agent. In the instant case the delinquent's right to representation was regulated by the standing orders which permitted a clerk or a workman working with him in the same department to represent him and this right stood department to represent him and this right stood expanded on sections 21 and 22 (ii) permitting representation through an officer, staff-member or a member of the union, albeit on being authorised by the state government. The object and purpose of such Provisions is to ensure that the domestic enquiry is completed with despatch and is not prolonged endlessly. Secondly, when the person defending the delinquent is from the department or establishment in which the delinquent is working he would be well conversent with the working of that department and the relevant rules and would, therefore be able to render satisfactory service to delinquent. Thirdly, not only would the entire proceedings be completed quickly but also inexpensively. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that the standing order of Section 22 (ii) of the act conflicts with the principles of natural justice".

( 2 ) EVEN this court has an occasion to examine the question at some length In G. R. Venkateshwara Reddy v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and others, leading to the formulation of the following governing principles: (a) the right to be represented by a legal practitioner is not an element of principle of natural justice; (b) a delinquent employee will have the right to claim to be defended by a legal practitioner, where the rules or regulations permit the employee to be represented by a legal practitioner; (c) where the rules or regulations are silent about representation by a lawyer or vest discretion in the disciplinary authority or the inquiring authority, to permit the employee to be represented by a legal practitioner or other agent of his choice, denial of such permission on a request made by the employee, would violate the principles of natural justice: (i) if the presenting officer is a legal practitioner of a person legally trained or experienced; or (ii) if the charges are of a serious and complex nature; (d) where the rules or regulations specifically prohibit the employee from engaging the service of a legal practitioner, such Rule or regulations will be read down as vesting a discretion in the disciplinary authority to permit the employee to engage a legal practitioner, where: (i) the presenting officer is a legal practitioner or legally trained person; or (ii) the charges are" of a serious and complex nature, if it is not so read down, the Rule itself may have to be held to be invalid as violating article 14 of the constitution".

( 3 ) SRI p. s. rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner arg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document