THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J
Prof. Guru Prasad Khataniar S/o Late Rajani Kanta Khataniar - Appellant
Versus
The Gauhati Univdersity And 4 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) / 351 / 2025
Decided On : 27-01-2025
(A) Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Rule 9(5) - Denial of legal representation - Petitioner sought permission to engage a legal practitioner as Defence Assistant in departmental proceedings - Inquiry Officer is a retired IPS with a law degree, but not a legal practitioner - Court held that legal representation is only permitted if the Presenting Officer is a legal practitioner - The refusal to allow a Defence Assistant was justified under the 1964 Rules. (Paras 6 , 10 , 20 )
(B) Natural Justice - Right to representation in disciplinary proceedings - The court reiterated that a delinquent officer's right to legal representation can be regulated by Service Rules. (Paras 11 , 12 , 14 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, facing disciplinary proceedings for alleged corruption, requested to engage a legal practitioner as Defence Assistant but was denied by the Inquiry Officer.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the denial of the legal practitioner was in accordance with the 1964 Rules, as the Inquiry Officer was not a legal practitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner has the right to engage a legal practitioner as a Defence Assistant in disciplinary proceedings under the 1964 Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that Rule 9(5) of the 1964 Rules restricts the right to legal representation based on the qualifications of the Presenting Officer, not the Inquiry Officer.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
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. & ors reported in (1991) 2 SCC 283, in support of his submission that there is likelihood of the combat being unequal in the departmental proceeding, entailing in a miscarriage or failure of justice, besides denying a real and reasonable opportunity of defence to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner/delinquent officer should be allowed to engage a legal practitioner as his Defence Assistant.
5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted a letter dated 16.01.2025 to the Inquiry Officer on the first day of the proceedings of the departmental proceedings i.e. on 16.01.2025. By the said letter, the petitioner informed the Inquiry Officer that he had engaged a legal practitioner as his Defence Assistant. However, the Inquiry Officer did not allow the petitioner to avail the assistance of Defence Assistant and instead the Inquiry Officer started examining three witnesses on the said day. The petitioner, however, did not cross-examine any witness on the said day. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the next date of appearance of the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer in the Departmental Proceedings is fixed for 27.01.2025. He submits that unless the petitioner is allowed to avail the assistance of a legal practitioner as his Defence Assistant and allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, there is a likelihood of failure of justice.
6. Mr. P.J.Phukan, learned Standing Counsel for the Gauhati University, on the other hand, submits that the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner under the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the 1964 Rules’). He submits that the right of the petitioner to avail the service of a Legal practitioner as his Defence Assistant would arise, only when the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner. He submits that no right accrues to the petitioner to avail the service of a legal practitioner when the Inquiry Officer is only having a law degree. In the present case, the Inquiry Officer is not a legal practitioner and only has a law degree. He also submits that Presenting Officer in the present case does not have a law degree and as such, no right accrues to the petitioner for availing the service of a legal practitioner as a Defence Assistant, in terms of Rule 9(5) of the 1964 Rules. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent University has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of J.K.Agrarwal (supra) and in the case of Cipla Ltd. & Ors –vs- Ripu Daman Bhanot & anr. reported in (1999) 4 SCC 188.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. What is not denied by either of the parties is t
Ramesh Chandra vs- Delhi University, (2015) 5 SCC 549
J.K.Agrarwal vs Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. & ors.
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.
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.