2008 (3) TMI 709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.9.2001 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 scrap worth about Rs. 10,000/-. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in which he was given opport....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g in a legal practitioner at the proceedings but he may be allowed to take the assistance of any other 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 in the same....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 (b) states that if the evidence is oral, the charge-sheeted employee shall be allowed 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, arguments before the Inquiry Officer can only be advanced by the charge....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld by this Court that representation could not be claimed as of right. This decision followed the earlier decision Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Maharashtra General Kamgar Union 1999(1) SCC 626 in which the whole case law has been reviewed by this Court. 10. Following the above decision it has to be held that there is no vested or absolute right in any charge-sheeted employee to representa....