J.K. AGGARWAL versus HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS

J.K. AGGARWAL versus HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS

Refusal to sanction the service of a lawyer in the inquiry, particularly when the presenting officer was legally trained and the charges could lead to dismissal, was not proper exercise of discretion under Rule 7(5), resulting in violation of natural justice.

Parties
Appellant: J.K. Aggarwal; Respondent: Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.; Respondent Advocate: Vishnu Mathur; Respondent Advocate: Ms. Madhu Tewatia
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 September 1990
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Writ Petition by Punjab and Haryana High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Natural Justice, Right to Legal Representation
Civil Service Administrative Law Disciplinary Proceedings Natural Justice Right to Legal Representation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.K. Aggarwal

Appellant

Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.

Respondent

Vishnu Mathur

Respondent Advocate

Ms. Madhu Tewatia

Respondent Advocate

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Writ Petition by Punjab and Haryana High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of representation by counsel to a government servant in disciplinary proceedings violates principles of natural justice under Rule 7(5) of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal to sanction the service of a lawyer in the inquiry, particularly when the presenting officer was legally trained and the charges could lead to dismissal, was not proper exercise of discretion under Rule 7(5), resulting in violation of natural justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appellant permitted to engage a lawyer for further proceedings in disciplinary inquiry.
  • Eight witnesses to be tendered for further cross-examination by appellant's lawyer.