Supreme Court of India
J.K. Aggarwal vs Haryana Seeds Development Corporation ... on 5 September, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 1221, 1990 SCR SUPL. (3) 13, AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 1221, 1991 (2) SCC 283, 1991 LAB. I. C. 1008, 1991 (1) UJ (SC) 633, 1992 ( ) LAB LR 21, (1991) 5 JT 191 (SC), 1991 UJ(SC) 1 633, (1991) 3 SERVLJ 161, 1991 (1) ALL CJ 697, (1991) 79 FJR 214, (1991) 2 LABLJ 412, (1991) 5 SERVLR 78, 1991 SCC (L&S) 483, (1991) 16 ATC 480, (1991) 1 CURLR 988
PETITIONER:
J.K. AGGARWAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT05/09/1990
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
SAIKIA, K.N. (J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 1221 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 13
1991 SCC (2) 283 JT 1991 (5) 191
1991 SCALE (1)488
ACT:
Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1952-Rule 7(5)--Charges likely to result in dismissal of
delinquent Government servant in inquiry--Representation by
counsel whether permitted in the disciplinary proceeding.
Civil Service--Disciplinary proceeding--Presenting
Officer trained in law--Denial of representation by counsel
to delinquent Government servant--Violates natural justice.
Words and Phrases--`Legal Adviser', 'Lawyer'--Construction
of.
HEADNOTE:
A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the appel-
lant, who was the Company Secretary of the Corporation on
certain charges which if established might lead to his
dismissal from service.
Inquiry-Authority, rejected the appellant's prayer made
at the initial stage of the inquiry for permission to engage
the services of a lawyer.
Before the High Court, appellant challenged the inquiry
proceedings on grounds of denial of natural justice.
The High Court dismissed the Writ-Petition in-limine against
which this appeal was filed.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1. The right of representation by a lawyer may not
in all cases be held to be a part of natural justice. No
general principle valid in all cases can be enunciated.
[15C-D]
In the present case, the matter is guided by the Provi-
sions of Rule 7(5) of the Civil Services (Punishment &
Appeal) Rules, 1952. [17C]
14
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 a discretion. In the matter on exercise of this dis-
cretion one of the relevant factors is whether there is
likelihood of the combat being unequal entailing a miscar-
riage or failure of justice and a denial of a real and
reasonable opportunity for defence by reason of the appel-
lant being pitted against a presenting officer, who is
trained in law. [17G-H, 18A]
In the inquiry, the Respondent-Corporation was repre-
sented by its Personnel and Administration Manager, who is
stated to be a man of law. Moreover, appellant, it is
claimed, has had no legal background. The refusal of the
service of a lawyer, in the facts of this case, results in
denim of natural justice. [17G, 18G]
Pett v. Grehound Raling Association Ltd., [1969] 1 QB
125; Pett's case No. 2, 1970(1) QB 46: Enderby Town Football
Club Ltd. v. Football Association Ltd., [1971] Chancery Div.
591; C.L. Subrahmaniam v. Collector of Customs, Cochin,
[1972] 3 SCR 485, referred.
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar,
[1983] 1 SCR 828, followed.
2. 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 he deemed to he
in the position of a legal adviser." [18A-B]
JUDGMENT:
