Departmental enquiry: refusal of a lawyer and unexplained bank deposits did not vitiate the disciplinary action.

Rule 14(8) of the 1966 Rules makes permission to engage a legal practitioner in a departmental enquiry discretionary, unless the rule's stated conditions are met. A serving Judge was not treated as a legal practitioner for this purpose, and the delinquent officer could have taken assistance from another Government servant; absent proof of prejudice, refusal of counsel did not breach natural justice. On the misconduct charge, unexplained bank deposits were upheld because the officer failed to substantiate the claimed agricultural income with supporting evidence, and disciplinary findings based on evidence are not disturbed unless perverse. The challenge to the enquiry and removal from service therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refusal to permit the delinquent officer to engage a legal practitioner in the departmental enquiry vitiated the proceedings for breach of natural justice. (ii) Whether the finding of misconduct based on unexplained bank deposits and the consequent punishment suffered from perversity or absence of evidence.

Issue (i): Whether refusal to permit the delinquent officer to engage a legal practitioner in the departmental enquiry vitiated the proceedings for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: Rule 14(8) of the 1966 Rules permits assistance of another Government servant and allows engagement of a legal practitioner only where the presenting officer is a legal practitioner or where the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances, so permits. The expression "may" was treated as directory and not mandatory. A serving Judge was held not to be a "legal practitioner" within the meaning of the rule or the Advocates Act, 1961. The appellant was qualified to defend himself and could have sought assistance of a colleague instead of insisting on an advocate. No prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The refusal to allow a legal practitioner did not vitiate the enquiry and is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding of misconduct based on unexplained bank deposits and the consequent punishment suffered from perversity or absence of evidence.

Analysis: The appellant did not dispute the deposits but failed to substantiate the explanation of agricultural income by producing supporting evidence or examining available witnesses. The property return also did not clearly support the claimed income. In disciplinary review, findings of fact are not to be reappreciated unless perverse, and the record supported the conclusion that the deposits remained unexplained. Adverse inference was therefore justified.

Conclusion: The findings were not perverse and the punishment could not be interfered with; this issue is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the departmental proceedings and punishment failed, and the removal from service was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Rule 14(8) of the 1966 Rules, permission to engage a legal practitioner is discretionary unless the rule's specific conditions are met, and in disciplinary review unexplained findings supported by evidence will not be disturbed absent perversity or failure of natural justice.

---