Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a teacher employed by the Zilla Parishad, faced a departmental enquiry initiated by a notice dated 6 August 2010 under Rule 6(2) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The charges included marrying a second woman while his first wife was alive and purchasing immovable property without permission, constituting misconduct. The petitioner submitted a reply on 18 August 2010 denying the allegations. On 28 June 2011, he applied to the Chief Executive Officer (Respondent No.2) for permission to engage a legal practitioner to defend him in the enquiry, citing the peculiar facts and circumstances. The application was rejected on 20 August 2011, leading to the filing of the writ petition. The relevant rule, Rule 6(5), allows a Parishad servant to present his case with the assistance of any other Parishad servant but prohibits engaging a legal practitioner unless the person nominated by the disciplinary authority to present the case is a legal practitioner. The court noted that the disciplinary authority had nominated a legal practitioner as the presenting officer. The petitioner argued that he should be allowed to engage a legal practitioner to ensure a fair hearing and parity of representation. The respondents contended that the rule only permits such engagement if the presenting officer is a legal practitioner, but the court found that condition satisfied. The court held that the rule itself provides an exception: if the presenting officer is a legal practitioner, the employee has a right to engage a legal practitioner. Denying this right would violate principles of natural justice. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 20 August 2011, and directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner for his defence in the departmental enquiry.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Right to Legal Representation - Rule 6(5) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - The rule prohibits engagement of a legal practitioner unless the person nominated by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner. The court held that when the presenting officer is a legal practitioner, the delinquent employee has a right to engage a legal practitioner to ensure a fair hearing and parity of representation. The denial of such request violates principles of natural justice. (Paras 7-10) B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Parity of Representation - Rule 6(5) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - The court reasoned that if the disciplinary authority nominates a legal practitioner to present the case, the employee must be allowed to engage a legal practitioner to defend himself. The rule itself contemplates this exception. The impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application was set aside. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a government servant facing a departmental enquiry is entitled to engage a legal practitioner when the presenting officer nominated by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, despite a rule prohibiting such engagement.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20 August 2011 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner to defend him in the departmental enquiry.
Law Points
- Right to engage legal practitioner in departmental enquiry
- Rule 6(5) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules
- 1964
- natural justice
- parity of representation
