Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave against the order of the Kerala High Court which had upheld the removal of a preventive officer from service following a departmental enquiry. The appellant, a preventive officer in the Customs Office at Cochin, was accused of canvassing business for his wife's taxi service in contravention of Rule 12(1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955. The matter arose after the appellant had sought permission for his wife to run a taxi service and was informed that no permission was necessary but that he should not canvass business. Subsequently, complaints were received and an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty and recommended removal; the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice and eventually removed him from service. The appellant challenged the removal before the High Court under Article 226, but both a single judge and a Division Bench dismissed the writ petition. In the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself because the department appointed a trained police prosecutor as the presenting officer, yet refused his repeated requests to engage a legal practitioner. Rule 15(5) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 provides that a government servant may not engage a legal practitioner unless the presenting officer is a legal practitioner or the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. The Disciplinary Authority rejected the request on the ground that the presenting officer was not a legal practitioner, ignoring the fact that he was a trained prosecutor. The Court held that this was a clear failure to exercise the discretion conferred by the rule and a violation of the reasonable opportunity guarantee under Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court distinguished precedents cited by the respondent and concluded that the order of removal was bad in law and must be struck down. The appeal was allowed, the removal order set aside, and the matter was not examined on other grounds.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Reasonable Opportunity - Constitution of India, Article 311 and Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, Rule 15(5) - The appellant, a preventive officer, was removed for allegedly canvassing business for his wife in violation of Rule 12(1) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 - The Enquiry Officer found him guilty and Disciplinary Authority removed him - The appellant contended that denial of permission to engage a legal practitioner when the department appointed a trained prosecutor violated reasonable opportunity - Held that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the circumstances and thus the order was bad (Paras Not mentioned). B) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Legal Representation - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, Rule 15(5) - The rule permits engagement of legal practitioner if the presenting officer is a legal practitioner or if disciplinary authority permits considering circumstances - Here the presenting officer was a trained police prosecutor though not a legal practitioner; the authority incorrectly reasoned that no counsel was necessary because he was not a legal practitioner - Held that this was a clear violation of Rule 15(5) and denied reasonable opportunity, rendering removal order invalid (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether denial of permission to engage a legal practitioner in a departmental enquiry where the presenting officer is a trained prosecutor violates Rule 15(5) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and Article 311 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of removal from service set aside due to denial of reasonable opportunity and violation of Rule 15(5) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 and Article 311 of the Constitution. The court did not examine other contentions.
Law Points
- Reasonable opportunity in departmental enquiry includes right to engage legal practitioner when presenting officer is trained prosecutor
- Disciplinary Authority must consider circumstances under Rule 15(5) of CCS (CCA) Rules
- 1957
- Denial of legal assistance when pitted against trained prosecutor violates Article 311
