Restricted assistance in departmental inquiry upheld as valid where employee may still defend himself and cross-examine witnesses.

In a domestic or departmental inquiry, an employee has no vested right to be represented by counsel or by another person unless the governing rules confer it. Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 permits assistance from a fellow member of the Force but restricts that friend from addressing the Inquiry Officer or cross-examining witnesses. That limitation was held to be a controlled form of representation, not a denial of assistance or a breach of natural justice. The rule was therefore upheld as constitutionally valid and the challenge to it failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, which permits assistance by a fellow member of the Force but prohibits such friend from addressing the Inquiry Officer or cross-examining witnesses, is unconstitutional.

Analysis: In a domestic or departmental inquiry, the delinquent employee ordinarily has to conduct his own case and there is no vested or absolute right to be represented by counsel or by another person unless the governing statute or rules confer such a right. Even where representation is permitted, it may be a restricted or controlled right. The impugned rule did not deny all assistance; it only limited the role of the friend while still allowing the charge-sheeted employee to defend himself and cross-examine witnesses under the rules. Such a restriction did not amount to a violation of natural justice or constitutional invalidity.

Conclusion: Rule 153(8) is constitutionally valid and the challenge to it fails.

---