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

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

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

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: