FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusBANT SINGH AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 522
- Decided
- 7 July 1997
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The High Court’s direction allowing a retired employee to act as defence assistant violated Rule 58(8) and was erroneous, but the enquiry need not be reopened as it was already completed.
Summary
The Food Corporation of India (FCI) issued a charge-sheet against Bantsingh and others and, under Rule 58(8) of its Staff Regulations, denied the respondents permission to engage a retired employee, Kamal Kumar, as a defence assistant in the departmental enquiry. The respondents filed a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which directed the corporation to allow the retired employee's assistance. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether this direction contravened the prohibition on legal practitioners and effectively permitted a retired employee to practice before a disciplinary authority. The Court held that the High Court’s direction was erroneous because it allowed a retired employee to act as a defence assistant, which is barred by Rule 58(8). However, since the assistance had already been rendered and the enquiry concluded, the Court declined to reopen the enquiry and allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court erred in directing that a retired employee of the Food Corporation of India be allowed to assist the respondent in a departmental enquiry under Rule 58(8).
- Whether the departmental enquiry should be reopened in view of the assistance already rendered.
Subjects
Judgment
A FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
v.
BANT SINGH AND ANR.
JULY 7, 1997
B [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Food Corporation of India Staff Regulations-Rule 58(8)-Departmen-
C ta/ enquiry-Defenca Assistance--Legal Practitioner prohibited-Employee
can defend either in person or through an employee of the Corporation or of
the Central Government or State Government-High Court directing to allow
the- assistance of a retired employee, though he is not a legal practitioner-On
appeal held, it really amounts to pennitting the retired employee to have
D regular practice-High Court committed error in giving such a direc-
tion-However, since the said assistance already given and the enquiry com-
pleted, the enquiry need not be reopened-Hence, the High Court's direction
not inteifered with.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4432 of
E 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.12.96 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.18180 of 1996.
Y.P. Rao for the Appellant.
F
Pradeep Gupta and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
G Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
This :ippeal 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.
H The admitted position is that pursuant to the charge-sheet dated
454
FOOD CORPORATION OFINDIAv. BANTSINGHANDANR. 455
1.6.1996 issued to the respondent, on 20.11.1996, the Enquiry officer A
,. 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 Corpora-
tion 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 B
petition 1nJhe 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 dire~tion 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 C
true that in an enquiry conducted by the Department, the delinquent is
entitled to a reasonable opportunity to defend himself including the assis-
tance 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:
D
"58(8) The employee may take the assistantance 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, E
the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of
the case, so 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 or the State
F
Government employee, in the departmental enquiry conducted against the
delinquent. A legal practitioner is prohibited to appear before the Discipli-
nary 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 G
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 slated that pursuant to the direction given by the High H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A 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.
B
G.N. Appeal allowed.
-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.