The prohibition on legal representation in disciplinary proceedings does not violate natural justice principles, provided the employee is allowed assistance from public servants.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A):

The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant, working as Junior Engineer in Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), was facing a criminal prosecution by the DMRC which had filed an FIR u/s 420/102B/34 of IPC at the Police Station, Ghitorni Metro Station, Delhi. This FIR was filed on 03.01.2023 because of one Mr. Mohit Gupta, a co-accused, who was caught red handed with a number of DMRC smart cards which were being illegally re-charged and sold for personal gains, for which the said Mohit Gupta was arrested by the Police on 04.01.2023. While interrogating the said Mohit Gupta, it emerged that the applicant herein had stolen the TOM machine including its CPU, Card Reader and Cypto from the premises of DMRC and had installed the same at his residence in Greater Noida from where he had been misusing these and many other unaccounted illegally recharged smart cards, thereby resulting in a loss of Rs. 28 lakhs to DMRC, for which he was arrested along with the co-accused by Police on 04.01.2023. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge memorandum dated 04.09.2023 was issued by the competent authority in DMRC to the applicant. The applicant has submitted his reply to the above charge memorandum vide his letter dated 03.10.2023 and thereafter, vide his representation dated 15.04.2024, had sought permission of the respondents to engage a legal counsel as his defence assistant. The respondents rejected his request for engaging such a professional legal counsel to assist him in defending the charges against him, by quoting Rule 42(6) of the DMRC Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules (hereinafter referred to as “DMRC Rules”) which reads hereunder:-

“6. The employee may take the assistance of any other public servant/retired public servant but may not engage a legal Practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits.”

In the instant case, the DMRC has taken the view that the Presenting Officer is not a trained legal practitioner or has acquired a formal degree in Law and is only an employee of DMRC and therefore, by quoting the above Rule 42(6) that the applicant can only engage a non legal practitioner as a defence assistant from among any of the public servant, both serving and retired. Being aggrieved by the above Rule 42(6) of the DMRC Rules, the applicant has approached the Tribunal by way of filing the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and seeking the following reliefs:-

“a) pass an order, direction declaring Rule 42(6) of DMRC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2021 ultra-vires of, inter-alia, Article 20(3) and Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently quash/set aside the same;

and

b) pass an order, direction quashing disciplinary proceedings instituted against the Applicant vide Memorandum No. DMRC/ O&EM /Tele / D&AR /Major/ 5844/2023 /02 dated 04.09.2023;

and

c) pass an order, direction quashing the cross- examination of witnesses conducted by the Applicant on 16.04.2024;

d) pass an order, direction directing to Respondent No.1 to drop Sh. Mohit Gupta from the list of witnesses in Memorandum No.DMRC/O&EM/Tele/D&AR/Major/5844/ 2023/02 DATED 04.09.2023;

and

e) pass an order, direction, directing Respondent No.1 to form a panel of legal counsel/eligible personal for the purposes of offering defense assistance to tis employee facing disciplinary proceedings;

and

f) pass an order, direction, directing stay of proceedings in Memorandum No.DMRC/O&EM/Tele/D&AR/Major/5844/ 2023/02 DATED 04.09.2023 instituted against the Applicant herein;

and

g) pass an order, direction quashing the notification bearing S.O. 2824(E) dated 01.12.2008 of the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension