http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BANT SIGH & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/07/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.  We have  heard learned  counsel for the parties.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment and order  of the  High Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  dated 19.12.1996 made in CWP No. 18180 of 1996.      The admitted  position is  that pursuant to the charge- sheet  dated   1.6.1996  issued   to  the   respondent,   on 20.11.1996, the  Enquiry officer  rejected permission to the respondent to  engage Shri  Kamal Kumar, a retired employee, as a  defence assistant  in the  enquiry. The respondent was asked to  appear either  in person or through an employee of the  Corporation  or  a  Central  Government  or  the  State Government employee  to defend  himself, The  respondent did not appear.  On the  other hand, he filed a writ petition in the High  Court  contending  that  he  is  entitled  to  the assistance of  a retired employee of the Food Corporation of India.  The  High  Court  allowed  the  writ  petition  with direction to  the corporation  to allow  the  respondent  to engage the  retired  employee  as  defence  assistance.  The question is:  whether the  High Court is right in giving the direction? It  is true  that in  an enquiry conducted by the Department, the  delinquent  is  entitled  to  a  reasonable opportunity to  defend himself  including the  assistance of the employee of the Corporation or of the Central Government or the  State Government  employee. Rule  58(8) of  the Food Corporation of  India Staff Regulations, which postulates as under:      "58(8) The  employee may  take  the      assistant of  any other employee of      the Corporation  or  any  State  or      Central  Government   employee   to      present the case on his behalf, but      may not engage a legal practitioner      for   the    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    permits."      A  reading  thereof  would  clearly  indicate  that  an employee is  entitled to  an opportunity  to defend  himself either in  person or  through an employee of the Corporation or  of  the  Central  Government  of  the  State  Government employee, in  the departmental enquiry conducted against the delinquent. A  legal practitioner  is prohibited  to  appear before   the    Disciplinary    Authority.    Under    these circumstances, a  direction given by the High Court to allow the respondent to take the assistance of a retired employee, though he  is not  a legal practitioner who is prohibited to appear and  assist the  delinquent, in  reality  amounts  to permitting the  retired employee  to have  regular practice, The High  Court has  committed an  error in  giving  such  a direction.      However, It  is stated  that pursuant  to the direction given by  the  High  Court,  the  assistance  of  a  retired employee was already given and the enquiry was completed. If that is  so, the  enquiry need not be reopened. In the above facts and  circumstances of  the case,  we do  not  want  to interfere with the directions given by the High Court.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.