Milk Union Worker Can Use Retired Punjab Government Employee In Inquiry Under Punjab Punishment And Appeal Rules: P&H HC Holds

The petitioner, an employee of a Milk Union, was facing departmental proceedings.

He sought permission to be represented by a retired Punjab Government employee as his Defence Assistant, relying on Rule 8(8) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (“1970 Rules”).

The Inquiry Officer rejected the request, and the appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not a Government employee.

He challenged both orders before the High Court

Rule 33.4 of the Cooperative Milk Producers Union Employees Service (Non-Common Cadre) Rules, 1996 makes the 1970 Rules applicable to covered employees in matters of discipline, punishment and appeal

Rule 8(8) of the 1970 Rules permits a Government employee to take assistance from another Government employee or a retired Government employee in presenting their case, subject to the rule’s terms

The Court held that, where Rule 33.4 incorporates the 1970 Rules without excluding any particular procedural safeguard, those safeguards must be given effect; procedural fairness and natural justice require a reasonable opportunity to defend oneself in disciplinary proceedings

The Court read Rule 8(8) in the context of its incorporation by Rule 33.4, rather than treating the words “Government employee” in isolation.

Since the 1996 Rules apply the 1970 Rules to Milk Union employees in disciplinary matters and do not exclude the Defence Assistant safeguard, the petitioner’s non-Government status alone could not justify refusing his request.

The petitioner’s Class-IV position and the potential difficulty of navigating a departmental inquiry reinforced the need for a fair opportunity to defend himself.

The impugned orders gave no sustainable justification beyond his employment status

It directed that he be permitted to take assistance from a serving or retired Punjab Government employee, subject to the conditions in the 1970 Rules, and that the inquiry resume from the stage at which the request was declined.

The Court expressed no view on the merits of the charges