THE MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD.versusK.V. RAMA REDDY

     THE MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LID.                             A
                                       v.
                              K.V. RAMA REDDY

                            SEPTEMBER 29, 2006

         [ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSJNGHPANTA,JJ.)                                B

       Service Law:

       National Seeds Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules,
  1992-Rule 31(7)-Disciplinary proceedings-Right to representation to              C
 delinquent employee by legal practitioner-Permissibility of-Held: Employee
 has no right to representation by legal practitioner or another person unless
 Rules provide for it-Disciplinary Authority may permit engagement of legal
 practitioner even if presenting officer is not legal practitioner having regard
 to the circumstances of the case-On facts, employee in better position to         D
 explain factual aspects, no explanation as to how assistance of legal
 practitioner would be better, and also employee given an option to be
 assisted by another employee-Thus, no prejudice caused to employee by the
 refusal to engage legal practitioner.

       With regard to the assistance sought by the delinquent employee in the      E
 departmental proceedings, Rule 31(7) of the National Seeds Corporation
 (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 permits assistance of any other
 employee working in a particular unit where charge sheeted employee was
 working; however, it prohibits engagement of a legal practitioner unless
 presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal
 practitioner or the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances     F
 of the case.

        Respondent-employee against whom departmental proceedings were
  going on for misappropriation of huge amount, tiled writ petition challenging
  the Rule since it denied him an opportunity to avail services of the person of G
  his choice but the same was dismissed. Respondent then sought permission
  to engage legal practitioner but the same was refused. Respondent challenged
  the latter part of the Rule. High Court allowed the writ petition holding that
  even though presenting officer was not a legal practitioner, yet the disciplinary
· authority could permit engagement of a legal practitioner having regard to
                                      725                                          H
     726                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A the circumstances of the case. Hence the present appeal.
           Allowing the appeal, the Court

          HELD: I.I. The law in this country does not concede an absolute right
    of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to
B   be heard and that an employee has no right to representation in the
    departmental proceedings by another person or a lawyer unless the Rules or
    Regulation and Standing Orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary
    proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such
    representation. The right to representation is available only to the extent
    specifically provided for in the Rules. (731-C-D[
c
          N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive and Engg. Co. ltd., AIR (1960) SC 914;
    Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 1392; Brooke Bond
    India (P) ltd. v. Subba Raman (S.) and Anr., (1961) 2 LLJ 417; Crescent
    Dyes and Chemicals ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993[ 2 SCC 115; Indian
D   Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association and Anr., (2001)
    9 SCC 540 and Bharat Petroleum Corporation ltd. v. Maharashtra General
    Kamgar Union and Ors., JT (1998) 8 SC 487, relied on.

           1.2. Though it is correct that even if the presenting officer is not a legal
    practitioner, the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances
E   of the case may permit engagement of a legal practitioner. But it would depend
    upon the factual scenario. [731-G-H)

         1.3. In the instant case, the reasons indicated by the respondent for the
  permission to engage legal practitioner were (a) the huge amount alleged to
  have been misappropriated, (b) number of documents and witnesses relied on
F by the respondent, and (c) the prayer for availing services of the retired
  employee which was rejected and that the respondent was unable to get any
  assistance to get any other able co-worker. None of these factors are really
  relevant ror the purpose. He had to explain the factual position with reference
  to the documents sought to be utilized against him. A legal practitioner would
G not be in a position to assist the respondent in this regard. It has not been
  shown as to how a legal practitioner would be in a better position to assist the
  respondent. As a matter of fact, the respondent would be in a better position
  to explain and throw light on the question of acceptability or otherwise and
  the relevance of the documents in question. High Court did not consider these
  aspects and was swayed by the fact that the respondent was physically
H handica11ped person and the amount involved was very huge. As option to be
       MANAGEMENTOFNATIONALSEEDSCORPN. LTD.1•. K.V.RAMA REDDY [PASAYAT,l.] 727


, assisted by another employee is given to the respondent, he was in no way      A
  prejudiced by the refusal to permit engagement of a legal practitioner.
  Therefore, the order of High Court is unsustainable and is set aside.
                                                                    (732-B-FI

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4335 of2006.

       From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.4.2004 of the High Court
                                                                                 B
  of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 50793 of 2003 (L. RES).

        Sudhir Kulshreshtha for the Appellant.

        M.N. Krishnamani, S. Barthakur, S. Pani, B. Barooah and Sunil K. Jain
  for the Respondent.                                                            C
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.

        Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a D
  Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court directiilg the Management of
  Mis. National Seeds Corporation' Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
  'Corporation') to consider afresh the respondent's prayer for being represented
  by a legal practitioner and decide whether same was acceptable or not.

       Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
                                                                                 E
         Respondent was working as Assistant Grade II Area Office at Hassan,
  Karnataka. It was noticed that the respondent and one G. Ansar Pasha, Seed
  officer (formerly Area Manager of the Corporation, Hassan) were responsible
  for huge loss of more than Rupees 63 lakhs because of misappropriation by
  them. Accordingly complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police, F
  CBI, Ganganagar, Bangalore. Simultaneously departmental proceedings were
  initiated by issuing charge sheets proposing major penalty. The departmental
  proceedings were initiated on 12.3.2003. On 16.4.2003 Inquiry Officer and
  Presiding Officer were appointed to inquire into the charges framed as the
  respondent denied the charges. Respondent sought permission of the
  disciplinary authority to take assistance of one Shri V. Vishwanathan who was G
  a retired Assistant Manager of the Corporation. The prayer to take his
  assistance was rejected by the Corporation, in view of Rule 31 (7) of National
  Seeds Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 (in short the
  'Rules'). Respondent challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No.28503 of
  2003 before the Kamataka High Court. Challenge was made to legality of Rule H
     728                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 31(7) of the Rules on the ground that the provision denied opportunity to a
  delinquent employee to avail services of the person of his choice. The High
  Court did not accept the contention and dismissed the writ petition. After the
  dismissal of the writ petition, respondent made a representation on 15.11.2003
  for permission to take assistance of a legal practitioner. The said request was
  turned down by order dated 2 l.l l.20C3. Against the said order respondent
B filed Writ Petition No.50793 of2003, again challenging that part of rule which
  permitted engagement of a legal practitioner only when the presenting officer
  appointed by the disciplinary authority a legal practitioner or the disciplinary
  authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permitted. Counter-
  affidavit was filed by the Corporation taking the stand that the same issues
C were earlier raised in the previous writ petition which was dismissed. The
  High Court allowed the writ petition by observing that even though presenting
  officer was not a legal practitioner, yet the disciplinary authority could permit
  engagement of a legal practitioner having regard to the circumstances of the
  case.

D          In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation
    submitted that the law relating to engagement of legal practitioner in a
    disciplinary proceeding is too well settled. The High Court accepted that there
    was no legal right to ask for engagement of a legal practitioner. Having
    accepted this legal position, the High Court erred in holding that disciplinary
    authority taking into account the factual scenario could permit engagement
E   of legal practitioner. In fact no question of law was involved in the department
    proceedings. The allegations related to misappropriation and the factual
    position was within the knowledge of the respondent. It has not been explained
    us as to how a lefal practitioner would be in a better position to assist the
    delinquent officer in respect of factual aspects.
F
          In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though
    engagement of legal practitioner cannot be demanded as a matter of right yet
    a discretion is vested on the disciplinary authority to perm it engagement of
    a legal practitioner having regard to the circumstances of the case.

G         The rival submissions have to be tested in the background of Rule 31(7)
    of the Rules. The same reads as follows:

           "Rule 31 (7) - The employee may take the assistance of any other
           employee working in the particular unit where the employee is working/
           was working at the time of happenings of alleged charges to which
H          the inquiry relates or where the inquiry is being conducted to present
           MANAGEMENTOFNATIONALSEEDSCORPN. LTD.1•. K.V.RAMAREDDY[PASAYAT,J.] 729


             the case on his behalf but may not engage a legal practitioner for the    A
             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."
 .~



            The law in this country does not concede an absolute right of
      representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be   B
      heard and that there is no right to representation by somebody else unless
      the rules or regulation and standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of
      disciplinary proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for
      such representation See N. Kalindi v. Tata locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd.,
      AIR (1960) SC 914, Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) ltd. v. Workmen, AIR (1965)         C
      SC 1392, Crescent Dyes and Chemicals ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993)
      2 SCC 115, and Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers'
      Association and Anr., (2001) 9 SCC 540.

            The basic principle is that an employee has no right to representation
      in the departmental proceedings by another person or a lawyer unless the         D
      Service Rules specifically provide for the same. The right to representation
      is available only to the extent specifically provided for in the Rules. For
      example, Rule 1712 of the Railway establishment Code provides as under:

              "The accused railway servant may present his case with the assistance
              of any other railway servant employed on the same railway (including     E
              a railway servant on leave preparatory to retirement) on which he is
              working."

             The right to representation, therefore, has been made available in a
      restricted way to a delinquent employee. He has a choice to be represented
      by another railway employee, but the choice is restricted to the Railway on      F
      which he himself is working, that is, if he is an employee of the Western
      Railway, his choice would be restricted to the employees working on the
_,.   Western Railway. The choice cannot be allowed to travel to other Railways.

            Similarly, a provision has been made in Rule 14(8) of the Central Civil
      Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965, where too, an employee   G
      has been given the choice of being represented in the disciplinary proceedings
      through an employee.

            In N. Kalindi's case (supra) a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed
      as under:
                                                                                       H
    730                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A          "Accustomed as we are to the practice in the courts of law to skillful
           handling of witnesses by lawyers specially trained in the art of
           examination and cross examination of witnesses, our first inclination
           is to think that a fair enquiry demands that the person accused of an
           act should have the assistance of some person, who even if not a
           lawyer may be expected to examine and cross-examine witnesses with
B          a fair amount of skill. We have to remember however in the first place
           that these are not enquiries in a court of law. It is necessary to
           remember also that in these enquiries, fairly simple questions of fact
           as to whether certain acts of misconduct were committed by a workman
           or not only fall to be considered, and straightforward questioning
c          which a person of fair intelligence and knowledge of conditions
           prevailing in the industry will be able to do will ordinarily help to elicit
           the truth. It may often happen that the accused workman will be best
           suited, and fully able to cross examine the witnesses who have spoken
           against him and to examine witnesses in his favour.

D              It is helpful to consider in this connection the fact that ordinarily
           in enquiries before domestic tribunals the person accused of any
           misconduct conducts his own case. Rules have been framed by
           Government as regards the procedure to be followed in enquiries
           against their own employees. No provision is made in these rules that
           the person against whom an enquiry is held may be represented by
E          anybody else. When the general practice adopted by domestic tribunals
           is that the person accused conducts his own case, we are unable to
           accept an argument that natural justice demands that in the case of
           enquiries into a charge-sheet of misconduct against a workman he ·
           should be represented by a member of his Union. Besides it is
F          necessary to remember that if any enquiry is not otherwise fair, the
           workman concerned can challenge its validity in an industrial dispute.

               Our conclusion therefore is that a workman against whom an
           enquiry is being held by the management has no right to be represented
           at such enquiry by a representative of his Union; though of course
G          an employer in his discretion can and may allow his employee to avail
           himself of such assistance."

                                                                (Emphasis supplied)

          In another decision, namely, Dunlop Rubber Company's case (supra),
H it was laid down that there was no right to representation in the disciplinary
          MANAGEMENTOFNATIONALSEEDSCORPN. LTD.1·. K.V.RAMAREDDY[PASAYAT,J.)      73 J
    proceedings by another person unless the Service Rules specifically provided A
    for the same.

          The matter again came to be considered by a three- Judge Bench of this
    Court in Cresce/1/ Dyes 's case (supra), Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) in the
    context of Section 22(ii) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
    Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, as also in the context of domestic enquiry,      B
    upheld the statutory restrictions imposed on delinquent's choice of
    representation in the domestic enquiry through an agent.

          The earlier decisions in N. Kalindi's case (supra); Dunlop Rubber
    Company's case (supra) and Brooke Bond India (P) Ltd. v. Subba Raman
    (S.) and another, (1961) 2 LLJ417), were followed and it was held that the law      C
    in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an
    employee as part of his right to be heard. It was further specified that there
    is no right to representation as such unless the Company, by its Standing
    Orders, recognises such a right. In this case, it was also laid down that a
    delinquent employee has no right to be represented in the departmental              D
    proceedings by a lawyer unless the facts involved in the disciplinary
    proceedings were of a complex nature in which case the assistance of a lawyer
    could be permitted.

          We have seriously perused the judgment of the High Court which,
    curiously, has treated the decision of this Court in Crescent Dyes 's case E
    (supra) as a decision in favour of the respondent No. I. The process of
    reasoning by which this decision has been held to be in favour of respondent
    No. I for coming to the conclusion that he had a right to be represented by
    a person who, though an office-bearer of the Trade Union, was not an
    employee of the appellant is absolutely incorrect and we are not prepared to F
    subscribe to this view. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the judgment
    passed by the High Court in so far as it purports to quash the order of the
    Appellate Authority, by which the Draft Standing Orders were certified, cannot
I   be sustained.

         The position as afore-noted was reiterated in Bharat Petroleum
    Corporation Ltd v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Ors., JT ( 1998)
    8 SC 487.

          Though it is correct, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondent,
    that even if the presenting officer is not a legal practitioner, the disciplinary
    authority having regard to the circumstances of the case may perm it
     732                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A engagement of a legal practitioner. But it would depend upon the factual
    scenario.

          Learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation has brought to our notice
   office memorandum dated 21.11.2003 by which the prayer to engage a legal
   practitioner to act as a defence assistant was rejected. Reference was made
                                                                                    ...
B to the rules, though no specific reference has been made to the discretion
   available to be exercised in particular circumstances of a case. The same has
   to be noted in the background of the basis of prayer made for the purpose.
   The reasons indicated by Respondent for the purpose are (a) amount alleged
   to have been misappropriated is Rs.63.67 lakhs (b) number of documents and
C number of witnesses are relied on by the respondent, and (c) the prayer for
  availing services of the retired employee has been rejected and the respondent
   is unable to get any assistance to get any other able co-worker. None of these
   factors are really relevant for the purpose of deciding us as to whether he
  should be granted permission to engage the legal practitioner. As noted
  earlier, he had to explain the factual position with reference to the documents
D sought to be utilized against him. A legal practitioner would not be in a
  position to assist the respondent in this regard. It has not been shown as to
  how a legal practitioner would be in a better position to assist the respondent
  so far as the documents in question are concerned. As a matter of fact, he
  would be in a better position to explain and throw light on the question of
E acceptability or otherwise and the relevance of the documents in question.
  The High Court has not considered these aspects and has been swayed by
  the fact that the respondent was physically handicapped person and the
  amount involved is very huge. As option to be assisted by another employee
  is given to the respondent, he was in no way prejudiced by the refusal to
  permit engagement ofa legal practitioner. The High Court's order is, therefore,
F unsustainable and is set aside.
             Appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to
    costs.

    N.J.                                                        Appeal allowed.
G