SURENDRAKNMAR Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays to command the respondents to allow him to engage a legal practitioner of his choice after quashing a communication contained in letter dated 7/10-8-1992 of the Senior Personnel Officer of Respondent No 1 (Respondent No. 4) informing him that as per the rules engaging of a legal practitioner is not permissible and that he may take assistance of any other employee for the same and for striking down Clause 29.6 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice.

(2.) The respondents in their counter-affidavit assert, inter alia, that the denial was for many reasons apart from the rule aforesaid.

(3.) Whether the petitioner, who is a Deputy Personnel Manager, well trained and conversant with the procedure and rules involved in the departmental proceeding in which an Inspector of Police, C. B. I is the representing authority can be allowed to engage a lawyer to defend him in a dapartmental proceeding is the only question involved in this writ application.