Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Prof. Guru Prasad Khataniar S/o Late Rajani Kanta Khataniar – Appellant
Versus
Gauhati Univdersity – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr.M.K.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.J.Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University.
2. The petitioner’s prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner to engage a Legal practitioner as a Defence Assistant in the departmental proceeding which has been initiated against him, vide Memorandum of Charge dated 23.10.2024.
3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Inquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary authority, which is the Executive Council of the Gauhati University headed by the Vice-Chancellor, is a Retd. Indian Police Service (IPS) Officer, having a law degree and as such, it was imperative that the petitioner should be allowed to engage a legal practitioner as a Defence Assistant, to have a level playing field.
4. The petitioner’s counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra vs- Delhi University, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 549 and the case of J.K.Agrarwal –vs Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.
Legal representation in disciplinary proceedings is contingent upon the Presenting Officer being a legal practitioner, as per Rule 9(5) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant is entitled to engage a legal practitioner for assistance in a disciplinary proceeding, as provided under Rule 15(5) of t....
The discretion vested with the Enquiry Officer under Rule 7(A) (13) is to be exercised judiciously and with circumspection, and the Enquiry Officer's decision to decline the request for engagement of....
A workman cannot engage an Advocate as a defence representative in a domestic enquiry if the management representative is not legally trained, despite the absence of specific provisions in the Model ....
The refusal to allow legal representation in a disciplinary enquiry, particularly when the presenting officer is legally trained, violates natural justice and renders the proceedings invalid.
The appellant did not have an absolute right to legal representation in the disciplinary proceedings, and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer was justified.
The rules governing domestic inquiries regulate the right to engage external representation, and such rights are not inherent but statutory.
There is no absolute right in favour of delinquent officer’s to be represented in departmental proceedings through agent of his choice and same can be restricted by employer – Only requirement is tha....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
