VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

732 DECISION - 365
Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan, before whom
the contention was originally raised, observed that the departmental
nominee was a Dy. Supdt. Of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau and
was not Prosecuting Inspector at the time when the inquiry was held
and held that the respondent could not ask for the assistance of a
legal practitioner because the departmental representative was
neither a legal practitioner nor a Police Prosecutor or Prosecuting
Inspector. The respondent was told that he should take the assistance
of a Government servant but he pleaded his own case. The Single
Judge observed that from the application that was submitted by the
respondent, he was found to be a person well versed in law as well
as legal decisions, that the witnesses were cross-examined by the
respondent at length and that the main question for consideration
was as to whether M/s. M.R. & Company was a genuine firm or a
bogus firm and the rates at which the French leathers were purchased
were higher than the market rate or not, and that the respondent had
suffered no prejudice on account of refusal to permit him to engage
a legal practitioner to defend him. The Supreme Court agreed with
the finding and conclusion arrived at by the Single Judge, reiterating
that the departmental nominee was not a legal practitioner nor a
Prosecuting Inspector at the relevant time, and that the charges were
not of such nature that he could not defend them himself or through
the departmental representative whose assistance he declined.
(365)
(A) Sealed cover procedure
(i) To consider the case of the employee for
promotion and to determine if he is otherwise
suitable for promotion and keep the result in
abeyance in sealed cover and in case he is
exonerated in disciplinary proceedings, to promote
him with all consequential benefits is the only fair
and just course.
(ii) Guide-lines of Central Government on application
of sealed cover procedure to cases where