D.G. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. versus K. RAGHURAM BABU

D.G. RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. versus K. RAGHURAM BABU

Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, which provides a restricted right of representation by allowing a 'friend' to assist but not to address the Inquiry Officer or cross-examine witnesses, is constitutionally valid. There is no illegality in providing only a restricted right, as the charge-sheeted employee does not have an absolute right to representation unless specifically provided for in statute or rules.

Parties
Appellant: D.G. Railway Protection Force & Ors.; Respondent: K. Raghuram Babu
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, Writ Appeal No. 1397/1998
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; Rule 153(8) held constitutionally valid.
Legal Topics
Departmental Proceedings, Right to Representation, Constitutional Validity, Principles of Natural Justice
Administrative Law Labour Law Departmental Proceedings Right to Representation Constitutional Validity Principles of Natural Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D.G. Railway Protection Force & Ors.

Appellant

K. Raghuram Babu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, Writ Appeal No. 1397/1998

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 is constitutionally valid, particularly in restricting the right of representation of charge-sheeted employees.

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, which provides a restricted right of representation by allowing a 'friend' to assist but not to address the Inquiry Officer or cross-examine witnesses, is constitutionally valid. There is no illegality in providing only a restricted right, as the charge-sheeted employee does not have an absolute right to representation unless specifically provided for in statute or rules.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; Rule 153(8) held constitutionally valid.

Orders

  • The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.