The discretion to permit a defence representative lies with the authority concerned and is not a legal or constitutional right of the employee.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Deshpande, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, and gone through the order dated 09.06.2017, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, allowing the Original Application No.2190/2013, filed by respondent no.1 - employee.

2. On Two grounds the Tribunal has allowed the application and directed denovo enquiry to be conducted against respondent no.1 - employee - (1) that there was a failure to provide defence representative/lawyer to represent the respondent no.1 in the departmental enquiry, which has vitiated the enquiry; and (2) that opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was not provided to the respondent - employee.

3. We have gone through the proceedings of the enquiry, which are reproduced in the order of the Tribunal. About 15 charges were leveled against respondent no.1 employee. In respect of certain charges, the respondent was given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, and though he reserved the right to cross examine such witnesses on next occasion, at no point of time he availed such opportunity. In respect of certain charges, even the statement of witnesses were not recorded, but, merely say of the Presenting officer was recorded and at some places the Presenting Officer also sought time to cross examine the witnesses of the department itself. The matter is discussed in detail in the order of the Tribunal, and we need not repeat it. We therefore, find no fault with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in respect of failure of the department to provide opportunity to the respondent - employee to cross examine the witnesses.

4. In so far as the ground of failure to permit the defence representative is concerned, there is no provision contained in the manual, pointed out to us. The respondent no.1 - employee has no legal or constitutional right to get a defence representative for cross examining the witnesses during the course of in house enquiry. It is the discretion of the Authority concern and in our view, failure to permit the defence representative to participate in the enquiry would not vitiate the ultimate findings recorded by the enquiry committee.

5. In view of the aforesaid position, the Writ Petition is dismissed and denovo enquiry can proceed further in accordance with the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the present judgment. The said enquiry be completed within a period of 6 months. Rule discharged. No costs.