DIRECTOR BCG VACCINE LABORATORY MADRAS Vs. S PANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal, Madras bench (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal") dated 12/7/1989. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondents and during the pendency of the said disciplinary proceedings the said respondents had been placed under suspension. In those disciplinary proceedings the disciplinary authority had appointed an Advocate, Shri muthappan, as the Presenting Officer in the inquiry that was being conducted by the Inquiry Officer. Since the Presenting Officer was a legal practitioner, the respondents submitted that they should also be permitted to be represented by a legal practitioner. The said prayer of the respondents was allowed and by order dated 25/11/1988 they were permitted the assistance of a legal practitioner, Shri K. Chandru, Advocate. Thereafter, the respondents moved the disciplinary authority for payment of remuneration to Shri K. Chandru and requested that he may be paid same remuneration and allowances as would be paid to the Presenting Officer who was a legalpractitioner. The said request of the respondents was, however, rejected by the disciplinary authority by order dated 16/3/1989 on the ground that there a is no provision for payment of remuneration or allowances to the advocate engaged as Defence Assistant as per the central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The respondents thereupon moved the tribunal by filing applications (OAs Nos. 224-226 and 283 of 1989. The said applications have been allowed by the tribunal by the impugned judgment. The tribunal has held that the respondents are entitled to legal charges payable to their advocate assisting them in the departmental inquiry on the same rate as are payable to the Presenting officer who is also a legal practitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the tribunal, the appellant has filed these appeals.

(2.) Shri H. L. Agrawal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has urged that merely because the respondents were permitted to be represented by a legal practitioner on account of the fact that the presenting Officer was a legal practitioner does not entitle them to claim the fees for the said legal practitioner who was assisting them in the inquiry before the Inquiry Officer. The submission is that the relevant rules governing disciplinary proceedings do not make a provision for making of such a payment.

(3.) It is no doubt true that in the rules governing the disciplinary proceedings no provision is made with regard to payment of fees or remuneration to the legal practitioner who is permitted to assist the government servant in cases where the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner. Explaining this right of a government servant to seek the assistance of a legal practitioner in cases where the Presenting Officer happens to be the legal practitioner, this court in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath nadkarni has said: