Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BANT SIGH & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/07/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated
19.12.1996 made in CWP No. 18180 of 1996.
The admitted position is that pursuant to the charge-
sheet dated 1.6.1996 issued to the respondent, on
20.11.1996, the Enquiry officer rejected permission to the
respondent to engage Shri Kamal Kumar, a retired employee,
as a defence assistant in the enquiry. The respondent was
asked to appear either in person or through an employee of
the Corporation or a Central Government or the State
Government employee to defend himself, The respondent did
not appear. On the other hand, he filed a writ petition in
the High Court contending that he is entitled to the
assistance of a retired employee of the Food Corporation of
India. The High Court allowed the writ petition with
direction to the corporation to allow the respondent to
engage the retired employee as defence assistance. The
question is: whether the High Court is right in giving the
direction? It is true that in an enquiry conducted by the
Department, the delinquent is entitled to a reasonable
opportunity to defend himself including the assistance of
the employee of the Corporation or of the Central Government
or the State Government employee. Rule 58(8) of the Food
Corporation of India Staff Regulations, which postulates as
under:
"58(8) The employee may take the
assistant of any other employee of
the Corporation or any State or
Central Government employee to
present the case on his behalf, 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
permits."
A reading thereof would clearly indicate that an
employee is entitled to an opportunity to defend himself
either in person or through an employee of the Corporation
or of the Central Government of the State Government
employee, in the departmental enquiry conducted against the
delinquent. A legal practitioner is prohibited to appear
before the Disciplinary Authority. Under these
circumstances, a direction given by the High Court to allow
the respondent to take the assistance of a retired employee,
though he is not a legal practitioner who is prohibited to
appear and assist the delinquent, in reality amounts to
permitting the retired employee to have regular practice,
The High Court has committed an error in giving such a
direction.
However, It is stated that pursuant to the direction
given by the High Court, the assistance of a retired
employee was already given and the enquiry was completed. If
that is so, the enquiry need not be reopened. In the above
facts and circumstances of the case, we do not want to
interfere with the directions given by the High Court.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.