M L PALADIA Vs. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as Principal in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and is facing Department Enquiry on the basis of alleged misconduct of demanding Rs. 500/ - as bribe from Sergent Narendra Verma on 13.5.1991. In the present writ petition the grievance has been raised that the Disciplinary Authority has not permitted the petitioner to have the defence nominee of his choice. It is submitted that the Discipoinay Authority has permitted the employee of CBI as Presenting Officer. The prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to appoint a retired employee of the Government as his defence assistant or in the alternative it has been prayed that Suresh Kumar could not be allowed to be the Presenting Officer or the petitioner be permitted to engaged a legally trained person or an advocate.

(2.) THE respondent is a registered society and in accordance with the decision taken by it the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 have been adopted and it was provided that all the employees of Kendriya Vidyalayas, Regional Offices and the Headquarters of the Sangathan are subject to the disciplinary control of the Sangathan. It has been decided that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time will apply mutatis mutandis to all members of the staff of the Sangathan except when otherwise decided, and that the appointing, disciplinary and appellate authority for the various posts will be as in the Appendix XIX. In the above Rules for the words 'Government Servant whenever they occur, the words 'member of staff of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan' were to be substituted. Initially Shri R.C. Sinha was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, Shri J.C. Kardam was appointed as Inquiry Officer and then Shri J.C. Wadhawa, Superintendent (Adm.) KVS (RO) Jaipur was appointed as presenting officer on 25.5.1992 and on 28.3.1995 Suresh Kumar Sub Inspector, SPE/CBI Jodhpur was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The petitioner requested that Amar Singh, a retired Additional Superintendent of Police, be permitted to act as defence counsel in the inquiry. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 9.8.95 that Shri Amar Singh cannot be permitted to be his defence counsel. A representation was again submitted on 14.8.95 that a legally trained person may be allowed to be appointed as his defence counsel which was also rejected on 12.9.95 Shri R.K. Jain Asstt. Commissioner, an employee of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan is the disciplinary authority and Suresh Kumar is presenting Officer who is an employee of SPE/CBI. It is submitted that the respondents have appointed legally trained persons and therefore, he should be entitled to be represented by an advocate. The action of the respondents that only a retired employee of the Central Government can be permitted to assist the petitioner is also challenged and it is also stated that the presenting officer is an employee of CBI and this act amounts to harrassment of the petitioner in the inquiry. It was also informed to the petitioner that the defence nominee should be a Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan employee, retired or in -service.

(3.) RELIANCE has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of C.L. Subramaniam v. The Collector of Customs, Cochin 1973(2) SLR -415, wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that if the disciplinary authority has appointed a legally trained person, though not a legal practitioner to present the case, the delinquent officer should not be refused to engage a legally trained person as it amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity. The provisions of Rule 15(5) of the CCA (CCA) Rules, 1961 were taken into consideration which provide that: The Disciplinary Authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the authority inquiring into the charges (hereinafter referred to as the Inquiring Authority). The Government servant may present his case with the assistance of any other Government Servant approved by the Disciplinary Authority, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the person nominated by the Disciplinary Authority having is a legal practitioner or unless the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. It was found that the appellant was pitted against a trained prosecutor. The grievance was not properly considered. In these circumstances, it was observed that when a man is charged with the breach of a rule entailing serious consequences, he is not likely to be in a position to present his case as best as it should be. The acquisition against the appellant threatened his very livelihood. Any adverse verdict against him was bound to be disastrous to him as it has proved to be. In such a situation he cannot be expected to act calmly and with delineration, and that is why Rule 15(5) has provided for representation of a Government Servant charged with derelicion of duty or with contravention of the rule by another Government servant or in appropriate cases by a legal practitioner.