IMPORTANT POINTS
If any person who is or was a legal practitioner, including a retired High Court Judge is appointed as an Enquiry Officer in an enquiry initiated against an employee denial of assistance of legal practitioner to the charged employee would be unfair. When that be the exposition law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 30 the view taken and the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge taking note of the fact that the Inquiry Officer is a legal practitioner cannot be upturned by accepting the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant based on the decision relied on by him, referred hereinbefore. Here, the first respondent is pitted against a trained mind inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer is a practicing lawyer.

JUDGMENT :

Ravikumar, J

This Intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.12.2019 in WP(C)No.32371/2019. The first respondent therein has come up with this appeal on being aggrieved by the judgment passed thereon by the learned single Judge. The writ petition was moved by the first respondent herein who is an employee of the appellant-Vaikom Taluk Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. He was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. In the disciplinary proceedings initiated subsequently as per Ext.P4 memo of charges the appellant appointed Advocate Harikumar as the Enquiry Officer. He is a practicing lawyer. True that, the Presenting Officer is not legally trained and he is only an Assistant Secretary under the appellant. The first respondent herein/the writ petitioner submitted Ext.P6 requesting permission to get assistance of an Advocate for presenting his case in the enquiry proceedings. The writ petition was moved when the said request was declined. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Professor Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi and Others reported in [(2015) 5 SCC 549]. The learned single Judge ordered that the writ petitioner should be permitted to appear in the disciplinary enquiry through a legal practitioner. That apart, the learned single Judge held that it would be open to the appellant too, to engage a lawyer as its Presenting Officer. It is on being aggrieved by the said judgment that this appeal has been preferred.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 5.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his challenge against the judgment. Firstly, he relied on the decision in N.Kalindi v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited reported in AIR 1960 SC 914.The question posed for consideration of the Apex Court in that case is available in the very opening sentence of the said decision and it reads thus:-

“When the management of an industry holds an enquiry into the charges against a workman for the purpose of deciding what action if any, should be taken against him, has the workman a right to be represented by a representative of his Union at the enquiry?”

(underline supplied)

In the context of the contention advanced by the learned counsel relying on the said decision it is only appropriate to refer to paragraphs 4 and 5 therein of the said decision and they read thus:-

“4. It is helpful to consider in this connection the fact that ordinarily in enquiries before domestic tribunals the person accused of any misconduct conducts his own case. Rules have been framed by Government as regards the procedure to be followed in enquiries against their own employees. No provision is made in these rules that the person against whom an enquiry is held may be represented by anybody else. When the general practice adopted by domestic tribunal is that the person accused conducts his own case, we are unable to accept an argument that natural justice demands that in the case of enquiries into a charge-sheet of misconduct against a workman he should be represented by a member of his Union. Besides, it is necessary to remember that if any enquiry is not otherwise fair, the workman concerned can challenge its validity in an industrial dispute.

5. Our conclusion therefore is that a workman against whom an enquiry is being held by the management has no right to be represented at such enquiry by a representative of his Union; though of course an employer in his discretion can and may allow his employee to avail himself of such assistance.”

4. Thus it is evident that the Hon'ble Apex Court held therein that in the absence of any provision enabling a