Leo Don Bosco vs The Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development and The Director of Town and Country Planning

M.M. Sundresh, J.—The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge, by which the order of dismissal passed against the appellant on 3.1.1991 has been confirmed. By the proceedings dated 7.6.1983, three charges were framed against the appellant. The charges framed against the appellant are to the effect that he went to the Assistant Accounts Clerk''s room and behaved in an unpleasant manner. Two more charges have been framed on the ground that he did not obey the order of transfer and therefore committed insubordination. An enquiry has been conducted, in which the appellant was given adequate opportunity to put forth his case. Thereafter, by order dated 28.5.1985, an order of dismissal was passed. The appellant filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, by order dated 8.9.1987, set aside the order of dismissal and remitted the matter to the Department. Thus, the appellant was given further opportunity to undergo another enquiry. The enquiry was conducted and thereafter, an order of dismissal was once again passed on 3.1.1991. The appellant filed further appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed on 3.2.1994. Not being satisfied with the same, the appellant moved the State Administrative Tribunal, as it was existing at the relevant point of time, by filing an Original Application in O.A. No. 4572 of 1994. The said case was transferred and re-numbered as W.P. No. 27181 of 2006.

Before the learned single Judge, the appellant raised a contention that the assistance of an advocate sought for by him was wrongly rejected. The further contention raised was that the enquiry officer, as sought for by the appellant, was not granted. The third contention was that the punishment imposed upon him was disproportionate to the charges framed. The learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition rejecting the contentions raised by the appellant/writ petitioner. Aggrieved, the present writ appeal has been filed. It is seen that the appellant has been given sufficient opportunity in the enquiry conducted by the authority concerned. The appellate authority has given a further opportunity to the appellant, by directing the original authority to conduct another enquiry. Therefore, we do not find any irregularity in the enquiry conducted. Furthermore, the right to have a counsel is only a statutory right. In the absence of any rule or regulation paving way for such a right, the appellant cannot insist that he should be represented by a counsel. Therefore, the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the first contention. So far as the second contention is concerned, the learned single Judge has rightly rejected it holding that the appellant, being a delinquent, does not have any right to choose the Enquiry Officer. Coming to the third contention viz., the punishment being disproportionate to the charges framed, we are of the view that there is no merit in the said contention. The charges levelled against the appellant are to the effect that he had created a scene and caused hindrance to the functioning of the office and by the conduct of the appellant, the reputation of the office was tarnished. Few other charges levelled against appellant were also proved. As we do not find any error in the procedure followed and the punishment imposed, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned orders passed by the respondents, as confirmed by the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs.