The episode No. 23 has inadvertently been posted on 12.10.2024 itself in advance. Please read the same before reading this.
116. The oral and
documentary evidence on which the charge is based is disclosed to him (ibid.;
Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 2118].
117. He is allowed access to all relevant documents, not only on which the charge is based but also those which are relevant from the view point of defence [ibid.; Raizada Trilok Nath v. Union of India, SLR 1967 SC 759].
118. The statements made by the prosecution witnesses in preliminary inquiry are made available to him [State of M.P. v. Chintaman, AIR 1961 SC 1623]. If the report of preliminary inquiry is relied upon during the regular inquiry, it should also be made available to him [Krishna Chandra Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1589).
119. Though the principles of natural justice do not go to the extent of allowing defence assistance but if there is a provision for allowing defence assistance in the rules applicable to the charged employee, he can claim it to the extent permitted by the rules (Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathy, 1993 AIR SCW 1106]. But, even in such a case, there is no right of defence from a particular employee if his services cannot be spared in the interest of public service (H.C. Sarin v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1686].
120. The question of defence assistance from a legal practitioner can arise only if the rules permit it (Cipla Ltd. v. Ripu Daman, Civil Appeal No. 2230 of 1999 decided by the Supreme Court on 12.4.1999]. However, where the rules permit engaging a legal practitioner in appropriate cases with the permission of the disciplinary authority, denial of such permission in a case having legal overtones or involving legal or factual complexities or where the status of the presenting officer so warrants, shall result in breach of natural justice [Board of Trustees v. Dilipkumar Nadkarni, AIR 1983 SC 109).
Post a Comment