Departmental enquiry fairness prevails where no real prejudice, bias, or enforceable right to chosen legal assistance is shown.

A departmental enquiry is not vitiated by refusal to permit foreign travel or by alleged non-supply of documents where repeated opportunities were given, available material was supplied, witnesses were examined, and no real prejudice was shown. Allegations of bias failed because no credible evidence established personal hostility, adverse interest, or a real likelihood of bias; prior administrative opinion that enquiry was required did not by itself taint the proceedings. The employee had no absolute right to a professional lawyer or a particular railway officer where the rules did not confer such entitlement and the charges were not technically complex. The dismissal from service was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal to permit the appellant to visit Germany and the alleged non-supply of documents and other procedural steps in the enquiry amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity and violation of natural justice. (ii) Whether the enquiry was vitiated by bias on the part of the Chairman or by any adverse interest or animus of the other officials connected with the enquiry. (iii) Whether the appellant was entitled to the assistance of a professional lawyer or of a railway officer from India for conducting his defence in the departmental enquiry.

Issue (i): Whether refusal to permit the appellant to visit Germany and the alleged non-supply of documents and other procedural steps in the enquiry amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity and violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The record showed repeated opportunities to the appellant to participate in the enquiry and to specify the material needed for his defence. The Board took steps to obtain evidence at the relevant places, supplied the available documents, and called witnesses for examination. The appellant's own conduct reflected non-cooperation and shifting stands. On the facts, no prejudice was established from the refusal to allow an earlier visit to Germany or from the manner in which documents and witness-material were handled.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and no breach of natural justice was made out.

Issue (ii): Whether the enquiry was vitiated by bias on the part of the Chairman or by any adverse interest or animus of the other officials connected with the enquiry.

Analysis: No material established any personal hostility, adverse interest, or real likelihood of bias on the part of the Chairman or the other officers. The allegations were raised late and were unsupported by credible evidence. The prior administrative opinion that an enquiry was called for did not by itself establish bias, and the surrounding circumstances showed that the enquiry was conducted by responsible officers in an attempt to proceed fairly.

Conclusion: The plea of bias failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant was entitled to the assistance of a professional lawyer or of a railway officer from India for conducting his defence in the departmental enquiry.

Analysis: Rule 1730 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I, together with the appended note, did not confer an absolute right to a professional lawyer, and the appellant was offered a choice of assistance from other suitable persons. The charges were not of such technical complexity as to require legal representation as of right. The refusal to provide a lawyer or the specific railway officer sought by the appellant did not amount to denial of a fair hearing.

Conclusion: The appellant had no such enforceable right, and no violation of natural justice resulted.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appellant from service was upheld because the departmental enquiry was held to be fair in substance and not vitiated by any legal infirmity on the grounds urged.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental enquiry is not invalid merely because the delinquent employee is denied a particular procedural convenience, unless the refusal causes real prejudice or amounts to a denial of reasonable opportunity; the standard is fairness in substance, not technical perfection.

---