Saroj Bhattacharyya vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 January, 2003
5. This would take the Court to certain other more fundamental issues, as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has been argued that the petitioner was not made aware of his right to have the service of a defence assistant; the enquiry must necessarily fall through, it was sought to be argued. Time and again, it has been held by numerous judicial pronouncements including a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Saroj Kr. Bhattacharyya v. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2003 (2) GLT 72 that failure of the disciplinary authority or the Enquiry Officer to apprise the delinquent of his right to have the services of a defence assistant does not necessarily give rise to fatal consequences. The fatality would depend on prejudice and the prejudice like any other question of fact has to be pleaded and proved. In the present case, no prejudice is even remotely pleaded in the writ petition.