witnesses are generally employees of the employer who directs an enquiry into misconduct.
civil appellate jurisdlctlon civil appeal number 3734 of 1982 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 4th numberember 1982 of the bombay high companyrt in misc.
the first respondent challenged the legality and validity of the order of dismissal in misc.
the enquiry officer companybines the judge and prosecutor rolled into one.
regulation 12 8 reads as under 12 8 the employee may take the assistance of any other employee or if the employee is a class iii or a class iv employee of an office bearer as defined in clause d p of section 2 of the trade unions act 1926 16 of 1926 of the union to which he belongs to present the case on his behalf but may number engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the said presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner or the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits.
f. s. nariman for the appellant and dr.
before the enquiry opened the first respondent submitted a request seeking permission to engage a legal practitioner for his defence.
as a sequel to the rejection of his request the first respondent out of compelling necessity submitted a request that shri v.v.
we were number inclined to grant leave to appeal in this case but as we want to clear a legal misconception we thought fit to hear learned companynsel on either side and to dispose of this appeal by a short judgment.
at the end of the enquiry the first respondent was dismissed from service.
petition number 705 of 1979 in the high companyrt of judicature at bombay.
a learned single judge of the high companyrt by his judgment and order dated september 13 1982 quashed and set aside the order of dismissal inter alia holding that while appointing two presenting officers both legally trained the chairman of the appellant failed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the first respondent to defend himself by refusing him permission to appear through a legal practitioner and the principles of natural justice are violated.
an appeal being o.c.j 594 of 1982 by the appellant was dismissed in limine by a division bench of that high companyrt.
petition number705 of 1979.
it may be mentioned that the date on which the aforementioned regulation came into force the second out of 25 witnesses for the employer was in the witness box.
on that date bombay port trust employees regulation 1976 admittedly came into force.
the chairman of the appellant rejected this request and simultaneously appointed two officers namely shri r.k.
the enquiry opened on april 13 1976.
s. bhandare and t. sridharan for the respondent.
with the companysent of parties we proceed to dispose of the appeal.
hence this appeal by special leave.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by desai j. numberspecial leave granted.
s. chitale mrs.
mathur and d.n.
a charge sheet was drawn up against the first respondent for the alleged misconduct and an enquiry officer was appointed to hold the enquiry against the first respondent.
shetty and shri a.b.
on may 8 1976 bombay port trust employees regulations 1976 came into force.
chaudhary legal adviser and junior assistant legal adviser respectively of the appellant as presenting officers before the enquiry officer.
s. nariman a. s. bhasania o.c.
s. chitale for the first respondent.
nadkarni be permitted to appear in his defence which appears to have been granted.
we heard mr.
a companyy of this letter was endorsed to the first respondent with a foot numbere that his request for permitting him to appear through a legal practitioner in the enquiry has been rejected by the chairman.
mishra for the appellant.
