BANABIHARI MOHANTY DR Vs. MEMBER DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER calls in question vires of Rule 6 (2) of the Orissa Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative Tribunals) Rules, 1951 (in short, the 'rules'), on the ground that it offends fair play and equity.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary before we deal with the main contentions raised by the parties about vires of Rule 6 (2) of the Rules. Petitioner is facing proceeding before the Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') in T. R. No. 7 of 1994. He moved the Tribunal for permission to be represented by a counsel. No specific reason was indicated by him to show as to why he felt that such permission was warranted. The Tribunal by the impugned order (Annexure 1) rejected the prayer referring to Rule 6 (2), holding that engagement of counsel is impermissible.

(3.) PETITIONERS stand is that the said rule offends fair play and equity, and unequals would be pitted against each other in case interpretation given by the Tribunal is accepted. Mr. S. P. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that there is no infirmity in the provision, because both the prosecution and defence have been denied right to be represented through counsel. That according to him shows parity, and provision is hi consonance with fair play.