N BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. CANBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the only question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case entitled to be represented by a lawyer in the domestic enquiry initiated against him by the respondent-company. That representation in a domestic enquiry by a legal practitioner is not a component of the principles of natural Justice is no longer res integra having been authoritatively settled by a large number of judgments of the apex court including the one in crescent dyes and Chemicals Limited v Ram Naresh Tripathi, Where upon an elaborate review of the case law on the subject, the Supreme Court summed up the legal position thus:

(2.) even this court has an occasion to examine the question at some length In G.R.Venkateshwara Reddy v Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and others, leading to the formulation of the following governing principles: (a) the right to be represented by a legal practitioner is not an element of principle of natural justice; (b) a delinquent employee will have the right to claim to be defended by a legal practitioner, where the rules or regulations permit the employee to be represented by a legal practitioner; (c) where the rules or regulations are silent about representation by a lawyer or vest discretion in the disciplinary authority or the inquiring authority, to permit the employee to be represented by a legal practitioner or other agent of his choice, denial of such permission on a request made by the employee, would violate the principles of natural justice: (i) if the presenting officer is a legal practitioner of a person legally trained or experienced; or (ii) if the charges are of a serious and complex nature; (d) where the rules or regulations specifically prohibit the employee from engaging the service of a legal practitioner, such Rule or regulations will be read down as vesting a discretion in the disciplinary authority to permit the employee to engage a legal practitioner, where: (i) the presenting officer is a legal practitioner or legally trained person; or (ii) the charges are" of a serious and complex nature, if it is not so read down, the Rule itself may have to be held to be invalid as violating article 14 of the constitution".

(3.) Sri p.s. rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's case fell in category 'c' of the propositions enunciated by this court in the aforesaid judgment. He urged that the petitioner was entitled to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice because the charges framed against him were serious and complex in nature.