VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III

DECISION - 225
497
might be taken by the employer that since the Presenting Officers
were not legal practitioners in the strict sense of the term as used in
disciplinary rules, assistance of a legal practitioner to the charged
officer would not be justified. In this context, the Supreme Court
drew attention to its own observation in an earlier case that no one
should be enabled to take shelter behind such an ‘excuse’ . The
Supreme Court finally ruled that whenever a delinquent officer is pitted
against a legally trained mind, refusal to grant permission to the
delinquent officer for being represented through legal practitioner
tantamounts to denial of reasonable opportunity and natural justice.
The appeal of the Port Trust was accordingly dismissed.
(225)
Defence Assistant
Incumbent upon Disciplinary authority to inform
charged official of his right to take a Defence
Assistant even if he did not seek permission.
Charged Official, a class IV employee, not in a
position to know the intricate rules governing
disciplinary proceedings.
Bhagat Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,
1983(1) SLR SC 626
The appellant joined service as a Forest Guard in the
erstwhile State of Punjab and his services stood transferred to the
State of Himachal Pradesh from 1-11-66 on its formation. A joint
disciplinary inquiry was instituted against the appellant and a Block
Officer. The charges related to (i) illicit felling, (ii) negligence in the
performance of duty and (iii) doubtful honesty. Towards the close,
the inquiry against the appellant was separated and the co-delinquent
was examined as a witness against the appellant. The Inquiry Officer
held the charges relating to illicit felling and negligence proved against
both of them and submitted a joint report and the disciplinary authority