D.G. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS.versusK. RAGHURAM BABU

                          [2008] 3 S.C.R. 752

                                                                        i' ~
A          D.G. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS.
                                 v.
                                                                                 •;.
                        K. RAGHURAM BABU                                             j._
                  (Civil Appeal No. 3964 of 2002)
                           MARCH 3, 2008
B
           [H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
                                                                        ,(

           Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 - r. 153(8) -
                                                                            •
    Assistance to charge sheeted employee by agent-friend under
c   r. 158(8) - However, friend not allowed to address Inquiry
    Officer nor cross-examine witnesses - Constitutional validity
                                                                                     ,.
                                                                                 \ ......
    of - Held: Rule 153(8) grants restricted right of representation
    - Even if right of assistance is not granted by the Rule, there
    would be no illegality - Thus, Rule 153(8) is constitutionally
    valid.
D
       The respondent-employee was placed under·
                                                                       )-    -
  suspension for committing misconduct. Departmental
  proceeding was initi~ed against the respondent. He was
  given opportunity of hearing in which he sought to
E engage a friend to defend his case. In terms of Rule 153(8)
  of the Railway ~rotection Force Rules, 1987 such friend
  was not allowed to address the Inquiry Officer nor cross-
  examine the witn'ess. Respondent challenged the
                                                                        ,        ...
  constitutionality of Rule 153(8). The Full Bench of High                  f'


F Court held that the Rule 153(8) was unconstitutional, and                      \
  struck it down. Hence.the present appeal.
         Allowing the appeal, the Court
        HELD: 1.1 There is no vested or absolute right in any
  charge-sheeted employee to representation either
G
  through a counsel or through any other person unless
  the statute or rules/standing orders provide for such a
  right. Moreover, the right to representation through some
  one, even if granted by the rules, can be granted as a
H                                752
          D.G. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. v.                753
          K. RAGHURAM BABU [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]

      restricted or controlled right. Refusal to grant A
      representation through an agent does not violate the
      principles of natural justice. (Para 10) [756-A, B]
           1.2 Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules,
      1987 only provides for assistance to a charge-sheeted
      employee by an agent. Such friend is not allowed to B
      address the Inquiry Officer nor to cross-examine the
      witnesses. Thus, a restricted right of representation has
      been granted by Rule 153(8). Even if no right of
      assistance had been granted by the Rules, there would
      be no illegality or unconstitutionality. It cannot be said C
      that when a restricted right is granted, the said restricted
      right is unconstitutional. Therefore, the Rule 153(8) is
      constitutionally valid. The view taken by the Full Bench
      of the High Court in the impugned judgment is not correct
      and is set aside. (Paras 5, 7, 11, 12 and 13) [755-A, D; D
      7.56-C, D, E]
           Cipla Ltd. and others vs. Ripu Daman Bhanot and
      another 1999(4) sec 188 - relied on
           N.K. Kalindi and others vs. Mis. Tata Locomotive and          E
      Engineering Co.Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 914; Brook Bond India vs.
      Subba Raman 1961 (11) LLJ 417; Bharat Petroleum
      Corporation Ltd. s. Maharashtra General Kamgar Unidn
      1999(1) sec 626 - referred to.
           CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3964            F
      of 2002
           From the Order dated 7.9.2001 of the High Court of Andhra·.
      Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.A. No. 1397/1998.
            Dr. R.G. Padia, Shipra Ghose, B.K. Prasad and A nil Katiyar G
      for the Appellants.
'i'        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. This appeal by special leave
      has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.9.2001 H
    754         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008) 3 S.C.R.


A of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 139 of
  1998.
           2. The respondent was an Inspector of the Railway
    Protection Force. He was placed under suspension on
    18.9.1995 on the allegation that he made excess delivery of
B · scrap worth about Rs.10,000/-. A departmental proceeding was
    initiated against him in which he was given opportunity of hearing
    in which he sought to engage a friend to defend his case.
          3. A writ petition was filed before the Learned Single Judge
c   of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which was dismissed. Against
    that judgment a Writ Appeal was filed, and the matter was
    referred to a Full Bench of the High Court for deciding the·
    constitutionality of Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force         •
    Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which have
    been made under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957.
0
         4. The Full Bench held that Rule 153(8) is unreasonable
    and hence un-constitutional and accordingly it struck down Rule
    153(8). Against that judgment of the Full Bench this appeal has
    been filed.
E         Rule 153(8) of the Rules states:
           "153.8 - The enrolled member charged shall not be
           allowed to bring in a legal practitioner at the proceedings
           but he may be allowed to take the assistance of any other
F          member of the Force (hereinafter referred to as "friend")
          ·where in the opinion of the Inquiry Officer may, at the request
           of the party charged, put his defence properly. Such
           "friend" must be a serving member of the Force of or
           below the rank of Sub-Inspector for the time being posted
G          in the same division or the battalion where the proceedings
           are pending and not acting as a "friend" in any other
           proceedings pending anywhere. Such "friend" shall.
           however. not be allowed to address the Inquiry Officer nor
           to cross-examine the witnesses".
H                                                  (emphasis supplied)
                 D.G. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. v.                     755
                 K. RAGHURAM BABU [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
    .1
•                  5. The last sentence of Rule 153.8 (which has been A
             underlined above) was challenged as being arbitrary and
             unconstitutional. The said sentence states that a friend shall not
             be allowed to address the Inquiry Officer nor to cross-examine
             the witnesses. Thus the friend of the charge-sheeted employee
             can only assist him in preparing his case and even during the B
             hearing, but the charge-sheeted employee himself has to
     ';I..
     •       address the Inquiry Officer and cross examine the witnesses, if
             he so desires.
                   6. It may be stated that Rule 153.1 O (b) states that if the
             evidence is oral, the charge-sheeted employee shall be allowed c
             to cross-examine the witnesses. Thus, it is not that no right of
             cross-examination has been granted at all in the Inquiry.
             However, this cross-examination must be done by the charge-
             sheeted employee himself and not by his friend. Similarly,
    • -f     arguments before the Inquiry Officer can only be advanced by D
             the charge-sheeted employee and not by his friend.
                 7. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Full
             Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment is not correct.
                    8. It is well settled that ordinarily in a domestic/departmental E
             inquiry the person accused of misconduct has to conduct his
             own case vide N. Kalindi and others vs. Mis. Tata
             Locomotive and Engineering Co. Ltd AIR 1960 SC 914.
    ..:'I·   Such an inquiry is not a suit or criminal trial where a party has a
             right to be represented by a lawyer. It is only if there is some rule F
             which permits the accused to be represented by someone else,
             that he can claim to be so represented in an inquiry vide Brook
             Bond India vs. Subba Raman 1961 (11) LLJ 417.
                  9. Similarly, in Clpla Ltd. and others vs. Ripu Daman
             Bhanot and another 1999 (4) sec 188 it was held by this G
             Court that representation coutd not be claimed as of right. This
    ....,    decision followed the earlier decision Bharat Petroleum
             Corporation Ltd. vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union
             1999(1) sec 626 in which the whole case law has been
             reviewed by this Court.                                          H
    756       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 3 S.C.R.

                                                                           f.,
A       10. Following the above decision it has to be held that
  there is no vested or absolute right in any charge-sheeted                      •
  employee to representation either through a counsel or through
  any other person unless the statute or rules/standing orders
  provide for such a right. Moreover, the right to representation
B through  some one, even if granted by the rules, can be granted
  as a restricted or controlled right. Refusal to grant representation
  through an agent does not violate the principles of natural justice.     ...(
                                                                             •
           11. In the present case, Rule 153(8) only provides for
    assistance to a charge-sheeted employee by an agent. Thus, a
c   restricte.d right of representation has been granted by Rule
    153(8). Even if no right of assistance had been granted by the
    rules, there would be no illegality or unconstitutionality. How then
    can it be said that when a restricted right is granted, the said
    restricted right is unconstitutional ?
D
          12. We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the Full Bench     1- •
    impugned judgment of the High Court and we are of the view
    that Rule 153(8) is constitutionally valid.
       13. In view of the above, the appeal stands allowed. The
E impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. There shall
  be no order as to costs.
    N.J.                                             Appeal allowed.
                                                                            ~
                                                                              ~