Board of Trustees of the Port of
Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni B & Ors  INSC 82 (17
MISRA, R.B. (J)
CITATION: 1983 AIR 109 1983 SCR (1) 828 1983
SCC (1) 124 1982 SCALE (2)1097
CITATOR INFO :
R 1983 SC 454 (5) E&D 1985 SC1618 (9) R
1987 SC2257 (15) R 1991 SC 107 (239) RF 1991 SC1221 (4)
enquiry-Management appointed Iegally trained officers as prosecuting officers-
Employee s request to be represented by a legal practitioner rejected-whether
violates principles of natural justice.
Natural justice-Employee denied assistance of
Legal practitioner before domestic enquiry while management engaged legally
trained men as prosecuting officers-Whether violates principles of natural
The time honoured and traditional approach in
regard to a domestic enquiry in industrial disputes is that it is a managerial
function which would be best left to the management without the intervention of
persons belonging to the legal profession. This approach was based on the
ground that a domestic enquiry should not be unduly inhibited by strict rules
of evidence and procedural laws and that in the informal atmosphere in which
the enquiry is conducted the delinquent would be able to defend himself.
Whatever justification there might have been in the past for holding this view,
the position today is altogether different.
Industrial establishments employ on their
rolls an impressive array of labour officers and legal advisors in the garb of
employees. These officers are appointed as presenting and prosecuting officers
for conducting the management's case in a domestic enquiry. The enquiry
officer, more often than not, is a man of the establishment doing the robes of
a judge. The enquiry is held in the establishment's office or part of it. It
does not bear any comparison to an adjudication by an impartial arbitrator or a
Court presided over by an unbiased judge. Witnesses are generally employees of
the management which orders the enquiry. In short the scales are weighted in
favour of the management and against the workman. ;832 G-H, 834 E-F] Secondly,
even in a domestic enquiry there can be very serious charges: an adverse
verdict may so stigmatize a workman that his future, both in regard to his
reputation as well as his livelhood, might be put in jeopardy. [834 D] The
aphorism that "justice must not only be done but must be seen to be
done" is not a euphemism applicable to courts alone; it should apply with
equal vigour to all those responsible for fairplay in action. A quasi-judicial
tribunal cannot view the situation with equanimity where there is inequality of
representation. [835 G] 829 Brooke Bond lndia (Pvt) Ltd. v. Subba Raman (S) and
Anr.  2 Labour Law Journal 417 referred to.
Dunlop Rubber Co. v. Workman  2 SCR
139, referred to.
Pet. v. Greyhound Racing Association Ltd.
 2 All E. R. 545, referred to.
M. H. Hoscot v. State of Maharastra  3
SCC 544, referred to Facts:
In a chargesheet issued against the
delinquent employee (respondent) for the misconduct alleged against him the
management appointed its legal officer and his assistant as presenting
officers. At the same time it rejected the employee's request to engage a legal
practitioner for his defence. Meanwhile, as the enquiry was in progress, a
regulation came into force enabling a delinquent employee to engage a legal
practitioner if the presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority
is a legal practitioner. Even after the regulation came into force neither the
enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority reviewed the earlier decision
rejecting the delinquent's request to be represented by a legal practitioner.
At the end of the enquiry the respondent was dismissed from service.
The High Court set aside the order of
dismissal on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice.
On the question whether, where in a domestic
enquiry the employer appoints a legally trained person as
presenting-cum-prosecuting officer the enquiry would be vitiated for violation
of principles of natural justice if the employer rejected the delinquent's
request for permission to defend him by a legal practitioner.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: Since the delinquent employee had not
been afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself the enquiry ii
vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. [836 E] (1) Where in
an enquiry before a domestic tribunal tho delinquent is pitted against a
legally trained person and if he had sought permission to appear through a
legal practitioner, refusal to grant such request would amount to denial of
reasonable opportunity to defend himself. [837 D] C. L. Subramaniam v.
Collector of Customs Cochin  3 SCR 485, applied.
(2) Where rules governing a domestic enquiry
do not place an embargo on the right of the delinquent to be represented by a
legal practitioner the matter would be in the discretion of the enquiry officer
whether, considering the nature of the adjudication and the enquiry, the
delinquent should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be represented by a
legal practitioner. [839 G] 830 (3) When an enquiry officer finds that the
employer had appointed a legally trained person as presenting officer, he must,
before the commencement of the enquiry, enquire from the delinquent whether he
would like to take the assistance of a legal practitioner. [838 E] A. K. Roy v.
Union of India,  2 SCR 272 at p. 345, referred to.
In the instant case when the enquiry
commenced rules were silent on the question of representation of the delinquent
by a legal practitioner. While rejecting the delinquent's request to be
represented by a legal practitioner the disciplinary authority appointed the
appellant's legal officer and his assistant who were in its employment as
presenting-cum-prosecuting officers, apparently on the view that the issues
that would arise in the enquiry were such complex issues involving intricate
legal propositions of law which need the assistance of legally trained person.
While the employer was represented by two legally trained persons at the cost
of the appellant, the delinquent was asked either to fend for himself or have
the assistance of another employer who was not a legally trained person. In the
circumstances, the delinquent was denied reasonable opportunity to defend
himself and therefore the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority
was in violation of one of the principles of natural justice.
Though the disciplinary authority, even in
the absence of a specific provision, could have exercised his discretion to
permit the employee to be represented by a legal practitioner, it was exercised
against the employee on the ground that the disciplinary authority was not
under any statutory obligation to grant such request. The regulation, which
came into force during the course of the enquiry, made it obligatory for the
disciplinary authority to grant permission to the delinquent to appear and
defend himself by a legal practitioner if the management was represented by
legally trained persons. After the regulation came into force the disciplinary
authority should have suomotu reviewed his earlier order and afforded an
opportunity to the delinquent to be represented by a legal practitioner.
[838 D] The expression "life" used
in Art 21 of the Constitution has a wide moaning. It does not connote only
existence or continued drudgery through life. [839 C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDlCTlON: Civil Appeal
No. 3734 of 1982 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the
4th November, 1982 of the Bombay High Court in Misc. Petition No 705 of 1979.
F. S. Nariman, A. S. Bhasania, O.C. Mathur
and D.N. Mishra for the Appellant.
Y.S. Chitale, Mrs. S. Bhandare and T.
Sridharan, for the Respondent.
831 The Judgment of the Court was delivered
by DESAI, J. No Special leave granted.
We heard Mr. F. S. Nariman for the appellant
and Dr. Y.S. Chitale for the first respondent. With the consent of parties we
proceed to dispose of the appeal.
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. Before the enquiry opened, the
first respondent submitted a request seeking permission to engage a legal
practitioner for his defence. The Chairman of the appellant rejected this
request and simultaneously appointed two officers, namely, Shri R.K. Shetty and
Shri A.B. Chaudhary, Legal Adviser and Junior Assistant Legal Adviser
respectively of the appellant as Presenting Officers before the Enquiry
Officer. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the first respondent with a foot
note that his request for permitting him to appear through a legal practitioner
in the enquiry has been rejected by the Chairman. As a sequel to the rejection
of his request, the first respondent out of compelling necessity submitted a
request that Shri V.V. Nadkarni be permitted to appear in his defence which
appears to have been granted. The enquiry opened on April 13, 1976.
On May 8, 1976 Bombay Port Trust Employees
Regulations 1976 came into force. 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 not engage a legal
practitioner for the purpose unless they 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." 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.
It may as well be mentioned that even after the Regulation 12 (8) came into
force, neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Chairman of the appellant thought
fit to 832 review the earlier decision so as to enable the first respondent to
appear through a legal practitioner. At the end of the enquiry, the first
respondent was dismissed from service.
The first respondent challenged the legality
and validity of the order of dismissal in Misc. Petition No. 705 of 1979 in the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay. A learned Single Judge of the High Court 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.O.C.J 594 of 1982 by the
appellant was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of that High Court. Hence
this appeal by Special leave.
We were not inclined to grant leave to appeal
in this case, but as we want to clear a legal misconception we thought fit to hear
learned counsel on either side and to dispose of this appeal by a short
The narrow question which we propose to
examine in this appeal is whether where in a disciplinary enquiry by a domestic
tribunal, the employer complaining misconduct appoints legally trained person
as Presenting-cum- Prosecuting Officer the denial or refusal of a request by
the delinquent employee seeking permission to engage a legal practitioner to
defend him at the enquiry, would constitute such denial of reasonable opportunity
to defend one self and thus violate one of the essential principles of natural
justice which would vitiate the enquiry ? The time honoured and traditional
approach is that a domestic enquiry is a managerial function and that it is
best left to management without the intervention of persons belonging to legal
profession. This approach was grounded on the view that a domestic tribunal
holding an enquiry without being unduly influenced by strict rules of evidence
and the procedural jagger-naugkt should hear the delinquent employee in person
and in such an informal enquiry, the delinquent officer would be able to defend
himself. The essential assumption underlying this belief is questionable but it
held the field for some time and there are decisions of this Court in Brooke
Bond 833 India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Subba Raman (S) and Anr.(1) and Dunlop Rubber Co.
v. Workmen(2), in which it has been held that in a disciplinary enquiry before
a domestic tribunal a person accused of misconduct has to conduct his own case
and therefore as a corollary it cannot be said that in such an enquiry against
a workman natural justice demands that he ought to be represented by a
representative of his Union much less a member of the legal profession. While
buttressing this approach, an observation was made that unless rules prescribed
for holding the enquiry do not make an enabling provision that the workman
charged with misconduct is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner,
the Enquiry Officer and/or the employer would be perfectly justified in
rejecting such a request as it would vitiate the informal atmosphere of a
domestic tribunal. A strikingly different view was sounded by Lord Denning in
Pet v. Greyhound Racing Association Ltd.(3), wherein the concerned authority
directed an enquiry to be held into the withdrawal of a trainer's dog from a
race at a stadium licensed by the National Greyhound Racing Club. The rules of
the Club did not prescribe the procedure to be followed in such an enquiry, and
there was negative provision excluding a legal practitioner from such an
enquiry. The procedure for enquiry was the routine one of examination and
cross-examination of the witnesses. The licensee charged with misconduct sought
permission to be represented by counsel and Solicitor at the enquiry, which
request was turned down by track stewards.
When the matter reached the Court of Appeal,
Lord Denning observed as under:
"I should have thought, therefore, that
when a man's reputation or livelihood is at stake, he not only has a right to
speak by his own mouth. He has also a right to speak by counsel or
solicitor." The trend therefore is in the direction of permitting a person
who is likely to suffer serious civil or pecuniary consequences as a result of
an enquiry, to enable him to defend himself adequately, he may be permitted to
be represented by a legal practitioner. But we want to be very clear that we do
not want to go that far in this case because it is not necessary for us to do
so. The all important question: where as a sequal to an adverse verdict in a
domestic enquiry serious 834 Civil and pecuniary consequences are likely to
ensue, in order to enable the person so likely to suffer such consequences with
a view to giving him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, on his
request, should be permitted to appear through a legal practitioner is kept
We concern ourselves in this case with a
narrow question whether where in such a disciplinary enquiry by a domestic
tribunal, the employer appoints Presenting-cum- Prosecuting Officer to
represent the employer by persons who are legally trained, the delinquent
employee, if he seeks permission to appear and defend himself by a legal
practitioner, a denial of such a request would vitiate the enquiry on the
ground that the delinquent employee had not been afforded a reasonable
opportunity to defend himself, thereby vitiating one of the essential
principles of natural justice.
Even in a domestic enquiry there can be very
serious charges and adverse verdict may completely destroy the future of the
delinquent employee The adverse verdict may so stigmatize him that his future
would be bleak and his reputation and livelihood would be at stake. Such an
enquiry is generally treated as a managerial function and the Enquiry Officer
is more often a man of the establishment.
Ordinarily he combines the role of a
Presenting-cum- Prosecuting Officer and an Enquiry Officer a Judge and a
prosecutor rolled into one. In the past it could be said that there was an
informal atmosphere before such a domestic tribunal and that strict rules of
evidence and pitfalls of procedural law did not hamstring the enquiry by such a
domestic tribunal. We have moved far away from this stage.
The situation is where the employer has on
his payrolls labour officers, legal advisers lawyers in the garb of employees
and they are appointed Presenting-cum-Prosecuting Officers and the delinquent
employee pitted against such legally trained personnel has to defend himself.
Now if the rules prescribed for such an enquiry did not place an embargo on the
right to the delinquent employee to be represented by a legal practitioner, the
matter would be in the discretion of the Enquiry Officer whether looking to the
nature of charges, the type of evidence and complex or simple issues that may
arise in the course of enquiry, the delinquent employee in order to afford a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself should be permit ted to appear through
a legal practitioner. Why do we say so? Let us recall the nature of enquiry, who
held it, where it is held and what is the atmosphere ? Domestic enquiry is
claimed to be a managerial function. A man of the establishment dons the robe
of 835 a Judge. It is held in the establishment office or a part of it. Can it
even be compared to the adjudication by an impartial arbitrator or a court
presided over by an unbiased judge. The Enquiry Officer combines the judge and
prosecutor rolled into one. Witnesses are generally employees of the employer
who directs an enquiry into misconduct. This is sufficient to raise serious
apprehensions. Add to this uneven scales, the weight of legally trained minds
on behalf of employer simultaneously denying that opportunity to delinquent
employee. The weighted scales and tilted balance can only be partly restored if
the delinquent is given the same legal assistance as the employer enjoys.
Justice must not only be done but must seem to be done is not an euphemism for
courts alone, it applies with equal vigour and rigour to all those who must be
responsible for fair play in action. And a quasi-judicial tribunal cannot view
the matter with equanimity on inequality of representation. This Court in M. H.
Hoscot v. State of Maharashtra(1) clearly ruled that in criminal trial where
prosecution is in the hands of public prosecutor, accused, for adequate
representation, must have legal aid at State cost. This will apply mutatis
mutandis to the present situation.
We are faced with the situation where when
the enquiry commenced the rules neither provided for permitting the delinquent
employee to be represented by an advocate nor an embargo was placed on such
appearance. The rules were silent on this point. But the Chairman of the
appellant while rejecting the request of the first respondent seeking
permission to appear through a legal practitioner simultaneously appointed M/s.
R.K. Shetty and A. B. Chaudhary, Legal Adviser and Junior Assistant Legal
Adviser respectively, in the employment of the appellant as Presenting
cum-Prosecuting Officers. What does this signify? The normal inference is that
according to the Chairman of the appellant the issues that would arise in the
enquiry were such complex issues involving intricate legal propositions that
the Enquiry Officer would need the assistance of Presenting-cum Prosecuting Officers.
And look at the array of law officers of the appellant appointed for this
purpose. Now examine the approach of the Chairman.
While he directed two of his law officers to
conduct the enquiry as prosecutors, he simultaneously proceeds to deny such legal
representation to the delinquent employee when he declined the permission to
the first respondent to appear through a legal practitioner. Does this disclose
a fair attitude or fair play in 836 actions? Can one imagine how the scales
were weighted and thereby tilted in favour of the prosecuting officer? In this
enquiry the employer would be represented by two legally trained minds at the
cost of the Post Trust while the first respondent was asked either to fend for
himself in person or have the assistance of another employee such as Nadkarni
who is not shown to be a legally trained person but the delinquent employee
cannot engage legal practitioner at his cost. Can this ensure a fair enquiry ?
The answer is not far to seek. Apart from any legal proposition or formulation
we would consider this approach as utterly unfair and unjust.
More so in absence of rules, the Chairman of
the appellant was not precluded from granting a request because the rules did
not enact an inhibition. Therefore apart from general propositions, in the
facts of this case, this enquiry would be a one sided enquiry weighted against
the delinquent officer and would result in denial of reasonable opportunity to
defend himself. He was pitted against the two legally trained minds and one has
to just view the situation where a person not admitted to the benefits of
niceties of law is pitted against two legally trained minds and then asked to
fend for himself. In such a situation, it does not require a long argument to
convince that the delinquent employee was denied a reasonable opportunity to
defend himself and the conclusion arrived at would be in violation of one of
the essential principles of natural justice, namely, that a person against whom
enquiry is held must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
Are we charting a new course? The answer is
obviously in the negative. In C.L. Subarmaniam v. Collector of Customs,
Cochin(1) a Government employee requested the Enquiry Officer to permit him to
appear through a legal practitioner and even though a trained public prosecutor
was appointed as Presenting Officer, this request was turned down. When the
matter reached this Court, it was held that the enquiry was in breach of the
principles of natural justice. The order of the domestic tribunal was sought to
be sustained on the submission that sub-rule 5 of rule 15 of the Central Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 that "...... The
Government Servant may present his case with the assistance of any Government
servant approved by the Disciplinary Authority but may not engage a legal
practitioner for the purpose unless the person nominated by the Disciplinary
Authority as aforesaid is a legal practitioner or unless the Disciplinary
Authority, 837 having regard to the circumstances of the case, so
permits." The submission was that it is a matter within the discretion of
the Enquiry Officer whether to grant permission and more so because the
relevant rule fetters the claim to appear through a legal practitioner.
Negativing this contention, this Court held that the fact that the case against
the appellant was being handled by a trained prosecutor was by itself a good
ground for allowing the appellant to engage a legal practitioner to defend him
lest the scales should be weighed against him. This conclusion was recorded
after reference to the earlier decisions in Brooke Bond India (Pvt) Ltd. v.
Subba Ramman (S) and Anr. And Dunlop Rubber Co. v. Workmen. Reference was made
to Pet's case, referred to earlier, but it is observed that this case has not
commended itself to this Court. The earlier cases of this Court were
distinguished. In our view we have reached a stage in our onward march to
fairplay in action that where in an enquiry before a domestic tribunal the
delinquent officer is pitted against a legally trained mind, if he seeks
permission to appear through a legal practitioner the refusal to grant this
request would amount to denial of a reasonable request to defend himself and
the essential principles of natural justice would be violated. This view has
been taken by a learned Single Judge and while dismissing the appeal in If mine
approved by the Division Bench of the High Court commends to us. Therefore,
this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
We would reach the same conclusion for a
different reason altogether. The first respondent while submitting a reply to
the charge-sheet dated 14th April 1975 requested the Chairman of the appellant
to permit him assistance of an advocate at the enquiry. This request was
refused and the decision was conveyed by the Dock Manager as per his letter
dated March 1975. The enquiry opened p on April 13,1976. By May 8, 1976
evidence of only one out of 25 witnesses of the employer was offered and the
second witness was under examination. On that date Bombay Port Trust Employees
(Regulation) 1976 admittedly came into force. The relevant regulation 12(8) is
extracted herein before. The latter portion of the regulation practically
borrows the languages of sub.rule (5) of rule 15 referred to herein before, in
that it provides that the delinquent officer may not engage a legal
practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the
Disciplinary Authority is the legal practitioner or the Disciplinary Authority
having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits. Now the first
respondent had already submitted his request for appearing through a legal
practitioner at the enquiry. This eminently just request was turned down 838 on
untenable grounds, and to make matters worse for the delinquent employee two
law officers of the appellant were appointed Presenting-cum-Prosecuting
Officers. Assuming that in the absence of rules the Chairman has a discretion
which was required to be exercised wisely yet taking shelter behind legal
facade it was exercised against the first respondent because he was not under
any statutory obligation to grant this request. However, when Regulation 12(8)
came into force the situation materially altered and the large number of
witnesses almost all except one were examined after the Regulation came into
force and which made it obligatory to grant the request of the first respondent
because the regulation provided granting of permission to appear and defend by
a legal practitioner once the department was represented by legally trained
minds. A very feeble submission was made by Mr. Nariman that after the
Regulation 12(8) came into force, the request was not renewed. In our opinion,
that is hardly relevant. The unjustly refused request was already there and
obligation under the regulation coupled with fairplay in action demanded that
the employer should have suo motu reviewed his order refusing the request. In
fact one can go so far as to say that the Enquiry Officer in order to be fair
and just, whenever he finds the employer appointing legally trained persons as
Presenting cum-Persecuting Officers must enquire from the delinquent employee
before commencement of enquiry whether he would like to take assistance of a
legal practitioner. The option then is with the delinquent employee. In this
connection, we would like to refer to a weighty observation on this point where
despite constitutional inhibition this Court conceded such a right.
In K. Roy v. Union of India(1) the learned
Chief Justice while rejecting the contention that a detenu should be entitled
to appear through a legal adviser before the Advisory Board observed that Art.
22(3)(b) makes it clear that the legal practitioner should not be permitted to
appear before an Advisory Board for any party. While noting this constitutional
mandate, the learned Chief Justice proceeded to examine, what would be the
effect if the department is represented before the Advisory Board by a legally
trained person. It was held that in such a situation despite the inhibition of
Art. 22(3)(b) the fair procedure as contemplated by Article 21 requires that a
detenu be permitted to appear by a legal practitioner. Thus spoke the learned
"We must therefore make it clear that if
the Detaining or Authority or the Government take the aid of a legal practi-
839 tioner or a legal adviser before the Advisory Board, the detenu must be
allowed the facility of appearing before the Board through a legal
practitioner. We are informed that officers of the Government in the concerned
departments often appear before the Board and assist it with a view to
justifying the detention orders. If that be so, we must clarify that the Boards
should not permit the authorities to do indirectly what they cannot do
directly; and no one should be enabled to take shelter behind the excuse that
such officers are not "legal practitioners" or legal Advisers."-
And this view was taken as flowing from Art. 21 which mandates that no one
shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law. The expression 'life' does not merely connote
animal existence or a continued drudgery through life. The expression 'life'
has a much wider meaning Where therefore the outcome of a departmental enquiry
is likely to adversely affect reputation or livelihood of a person, some of the
finer graces of human civilization which make life worth living would be
jeopardised and the same can be put in jeopardy only by law which inheres fair
procedures. In this context one can recall the famous words of Chapter II of
Sambhavitasya Cha Kirti Marnadati Richyate
Therefore in this case, there can be no doubt that for the additional reason
that after the Regulation 12(8) came into force, the first respondent should
have been given a reasonable opportunity to appear through legal practitioner
and failure on their part had vitiated the enquiry. For these reasons, this
appeal fails and is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000.
Now, we may note the consequence of this
decision. As the decision reached by the domestic tribunal is held to be
vitiated on the ground that the enquiry was held in violation of the principles
of natural justice on the ground that the first respondent was not afforded a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself, the High Court was justified in
quashing the order of dismissal. The sequel to our order would certainly mean
that it would be open to the appellant to continue the enquiry. But it must be
expedited. We therefore direct that while continuing the enquiry, it will be
open to the appellant to treat the examination-in-chief of each witness already
recorded during the enquiry as proper but all witnesses examined at 840 the
enquiry will have to be offered to the first respondent for cross-examination
and the respondent would be entitled to appear through a lawyer of his choice
and even examine witnesses and participate in the enquiry. The earlier cross-
examination may also be retained as part of the record. Both sides would be
entitled to adduce fresh evidence both document and oral, if considered
necessary. The first respondent would be entitled to call upon the appellant to
produce any document which he desires for effective adjudication subject to the
decision of the Enquiry Officer about its relevance and necessity for efficient
and just disposal of the enquiry. As the order of dismissal is being set aside
and the enquiry is being continued, the order suspending the first respondent'
from service pending enquiry would be revived and the appellant should pay subsistence
allowance throughout this period and till the end of the enquiry which would be
continued hereafter after taking credit of whatever payment that had been made
since the suspension order and till today. The payment herein directed should
be made within a month from today.
P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.
S. R. Petitions dismissed.