Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Gnanasambandam S. vs Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. And ... on 13 February, 2001 cites

J.K. Aggarwal vs Haryana Seeds Development Corporation ... on 5 September, 1990

12. In view of the above rule, the next question to be considered is whether an officer is still entitled to the assistance of a lawyer in the domestic enquiry. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported in J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., (supra) had an occasion to consider the case of dismissal of a company Secretary of Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd., a Government Company. That was a case where the disciplinary Authority by virtue of the powers under Rule 7(5) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 appointed a Government servant/legal practitioner to be known as a "Presenting Officer" to present a case in support of the charge or charges and such a request for lawyer's assistance was denied to the officer on the ground the rule did not permit. While considering the said rule, the Supreme Court has held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 110 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Indian Airlines Corporation, ... vs N. Sundaram on 3 October, 1991

14. A Division Bench of this Court in a judgment reported in Indian Airlines Corporation, represented by Regional Director v. N. Sundaram, (supra) had occasion to consider the standing orders of the Indian Airlines Corporation expressly prohibiting outside representation in departmental enquiries. Even when there was a prohibition for outsiders to represent in the departmental enquiry, this Court has held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Pushpa Iyenger vs The Indian Airlines Corporation And ... on 4 October, 1985

15. The learned single Judge of this Court in the judgment reported in Pushpa Iyengar v. Indian Airlines Corporation, (supra) had also an occasion to consider the standing order which provided for a representation by a co-employee but not by a lawyer. That was a case where there was no provision in the standing order enabling the employer to appoint Presenting Officer. However, the employer had chosen to appoint Presenting Officer who is a legally trained person and the request to permit the delinquent to be represented by a lawyer in the domestic enquiry was not refused. This Court held that when the Indian Airlines Corporation is engaging a legally trained person conversant with domestic enquiries, it must also extend such a facility to the employee. The learned single Judge went on to add that even when the standing orders do not provide for a Presenting Officer to be appointed by corporation and yet the employer had chosen to appoint the Presenting Officers who are trained in disciplinary proceedings with considerable legal background, the request for singular representation through a lawyer by the delinquent officer cannot be refused.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Maharashtra Genl.Kamgar Union & Ors on 14 December, 1998

In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents reported in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (supra) it is true that the Supreme Court has held that there is no right to representation in the departmental proceedings by another person or a lawyer unless the service rules specifically provide for the same. However, in the present case, even in the absence of such rule enabling the employer also to engage a legally trained person to put forth the case of the employer, the employer has chosen to engage a Presenting Officer who is a legally trained person and a law graduate and the officer who has been pitted against such a legally trained person has not been given the benefit of assistance of a lawyer. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the learned Government Pleader is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

M/S Cipla Ltd. & Ors vs Ripu Daman Bhanot & Anr on 12 April, 1999

19. Another judgment relied upon by the learned Government Pleader reported in Cipla Ltd. v. Ripu Daman Bhanot relates to a case as per the service rules where the employee is entitled to be represented by a co-employee only and no right is conferred on the employee to be represented by a lawyer in the departmental enquiry. That was a case where the employer has not engaged any legally trained person to prosecute the case of the employer. In the absence of the same, the employee cannot have the assistance of a lawyer more particularly in the absence of a provision to have the assistance of a lawyer in the rules. Therefore, the said judgment also is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter, I do not find any justification in rejecting the request of the petitioner to have the assistance of a lawyer in the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner on the basis of the charge memo dated April 20, 2000. Accordingly, I set aside the findings recorded by the enquiry officer dated October 4, 2000 refusing the assistance of a lawyer to the petitioner to defend his case in the domestic enquiry. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to have the assistance of a lawyer to defend his case. With the above direction, the Writ Petition No. 17494 of 2000 is allowed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 79 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1