State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
90. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
rejection of the petitioner's request for defence
assistance vitiates the enquiry for violation of
principles of natural justice. Counsel would also
submit that the petitioner had filed a petition
before this Court in this pending writ petition,
seeking a direction to permit him to engage the
assistance of Sri.Chandrakant, in which the 1st
respondent filed a counter affidavit on 20-9-2004
suppressing the fact that the enquiry was already
over and the Enquiry Officer had submitted her report
on 15-9-2004. He would submit that the Enquiry
Officer knowing about the intention of the petitioner
to move this Court, completed the enquiry ex parte,
thus showing undue haste to foreclose the
petitioner's right to be represented by a defence
assistant of his choice in the enquiry. Counsel for
the petitioner on the strength of the decisions of
C.L.Subramaniam v. The Collector of Customs, AIR@@
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
1972 SC 2178, The Board of Trustees of the Port of@@
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendra Nadkarni and@@
CCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
others, AIR 1983 SC 109, J.K.Agarwal v. Haryana@@
CCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCC
Seeds Development Corporation, AIR 1991 SC 1221,@@
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Union of India v. Karunakaran Nair, 1985 KLT 680,@@
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
Stephen v. Commandant, 2004(1) KLT S.N.38 (Case@@
CCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCC
No.47) and K.Sreedharan v. Chief Security Commr.@@
CCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
and 2 others, 1993 (1) KLJ 430, would contend that@@
CCCCCCCCCCCC
right to be assisted by a co-employee of his choice
or a lawyer is ingrained in the principles of natural
justice and since the same has been denied to him in
the enquiry, the enquiry is vitiated.