J.K. Aggarwal vs. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Topic : Service and disciplinary enquiry
Provisions : Rule 7(5) of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952
Citation : MANU/SC/0294/1991, 1990 INSC 268
Court : Supreme Court
Date of Decision : 05.09.1990
Facts
Appellant was the Company Secretary of the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., a Government Company. The short question in this appeal is whether in the course of the disciplinary inquiry initiated against the appellant by the Corporation on certain charges, which if established might lead to appellant's dismissal from service, appellant was entitled to engage the services of a legal-practitioner in the conduct of his defence. The proceedings in the inquiry are regulated by the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952(The Rules).
Inquiry-Authority, by its order rejected the prayer made by the appellant at the initial stage of the inquiry for permission to engage the services of a lawyer. Before the High Court, appellant challenged the proceedings in the inquiry on grounds of denial of natural justice. The High Court dismissed the Writ-Petition in-limine. Hence, the Appeal.
Key Takeaways for Students
Legal Issue
Whether in the course of the disciplinary inquiry, appellant was entitled to engage the services of a legal-practitioner in the conduct of his defence?
Holding
Refusal to sanction the service of a lawyer in the inquiry was not a proper exercise of the discretion under the rules resulting in a failure of natural justice; particularly, in view of the fact that the Presenting-Officer was a person with legal attainments and experience. The rule itself recognises that where the charges are so serious as to entail a dismissal from service the inquiry-authority may permit the services of a lawyer.
This rule vests discretion. In the matter of exercise of this discretion one of the relevant factors is whether there is likelihood of the combat being unequal entailing a miscarriage or failure of justice and a denial of a real and reasonable opportunity for defence by reason of the appellant being pitted against a presenting-officer who is trained in law. Legal Adviser and a lawyer are for this purpose somewhat liberally construed and must include "whoever assists or advises on facts and in law must be deemed to be in the position of a legal adviser".