MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD Vs. K V RAMA REDDY
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-67
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on September 29,2006

MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
K.V.RAMA REDDY Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BROOKE BOND INDIA (P) LTD. V. SUBBA RAMAN (S.) AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
N KALINDI VS. TATA LOCOMOTIVE AND ENGINEERING CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
DUNLOP RUBBER CO INDIA LIMITED VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PRAKASH JOSEPH VS. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD. [LAWS(KER)-2014-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
CONVENT OF OUR LADY OF PROVIDENCE GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHERS VS. ANITA NIGAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-7-35] [REFERRED TO]
M SHAHUL HAMEED VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2011-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. M.J. JAMES [LAWS(SC)-2021-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
GURMEET SINGH VS. UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED [LAWS(P&H)-2021-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK VS. RAMESH CHANDRA MEENA [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LIMITED VS. KRIPA SHANKER TIWARY [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-6-39] [REFERRED TO]
CHHAUGUR PAL AND ORS VS. SAWHNEY RUBBER INDUSTRIES AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2011-10-278] [REFERRED]
MEEMANSA DIXIT VS. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2006-10-184] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER DEVADAR AIDED LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL VS. USHA U. [LAWS(KER)-2020-5-216] [REFERRED TO]
DEVADAR AIDED L.P. SCHOOL VS. USHA [LAWS(KER)-2020-5-227] [REFERRED TO]
HILLERY FASHION COTFAB LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-5-564] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHAV MADHAV FILAMENTS PVT. LTD VS. BANK OF BARODA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-822] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. JAH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2019-5-71] [REFERRED TO]
STEPHENS HOSPITAL VS. WORKMAN SH. S.K. ADHIKARI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-9-266] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Appellant calls in question legality of the judgement rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court directing the Management of M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') to consider afresh the respondent's prayer for being represented by a legal practitioner and decide whether same was acceptable or not.
(3.)Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
3.1. Respondent was working as Assistant Grade II Area Office at Hassan, Karnataka. It was noticed that the respondent and one G. Ansar Pasha, Seed officer (formerly Area Manager of the Corporation, Hassan) were responsible for huge loss of more than Rs. 63 lakhs because of misappropriation by them. Accordingly complaint was lodged with the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ganganagar, Bangalore. Simultaneously departmental proceedings were initiated by issuing charge sheets proposing major penalty. The departmental proceedings were initiated on 12.03.2003. On 16.04.2003 Inquiry Officer and Presiding Officer were appointed to inquire into the charges framed as the respondent denied the charges. Respondent sought permission of the disciplinary authority to take assistance of one Shri V. Vishwanathan who was a retired Assistant Manager of the Corporation. The prayer to take his assistance was rejected by the Corporation, in view of R. 31(7) of National Seeds Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1992 (in short the 'Rules'). Respondent challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No. 28503 of 2003 before the Karnataka High Court. Challenge was made to legality of R. 31(7) of the Rules on the ground that the provision denied opportunity to a delinquent employee to avail services of the person of his choice. The High Court did not accept the contention and dismissed the writ petition. After the dismissal of the writ petition, respondent made a representation on 15.11.2003 for permission to take assistance of a legal practitioner. The said request was turned down by order dated 21.11.2003. Against the said order respondent filed Writ Petition No. 50793 of 2003, again challenging that part of rule which permitted engagement of a legal practitioner only when the presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority a legal practitioner or the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permitted. Counter-affidavit was filed by the Corporation taking the stand that the same issues were earlier raised in the previous writ petition which was dismissed. The High Court allowed the writ petition by observing that even though presenting officer was not a legal practitioner, yet the disciplinary authority could permit engagement of a legal practitioner having regard to the circumstances of the case.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.