- (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.;