Mukul Sharma vs Govt. of NCT of New Delhi and Others

Cyriac Joseph, J.—The challenge in this writ petition is against the action of respondent No. 3 in not permitting the petitioner to be represented in the enquiry proceedings by Mr. B.K . Paul who is stated to be an official of a trade union of working journalists of which the petitioner is a member. The request of the petitioner was turned down by respondent No. 3 on the ground that Mr. B.K. Paul, though an official of a trade union of working journalists is a practicing lawyer. The contention of the petitioner is that the certified Standing Orders applicable to the petitioner do not prohibit the petitioner being represented by an official of a trade union of wonting journalists even if such official is a practicing lawyer. Mr. Birbal, appearing for respondent No. 2 very fairly submitted that if Mr. B.K. Paul is an official of the trade union of working journalists of which the petitioner is a member, he is entitled to represent the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings as per the Standing Orders even if he is a practicing lawyer. Hence the impugned orders of respondent No. 3 are to be set aside and respondent No. 3 is to be directed to permit the petitioner to be represented in the enquiry proceedings by Mr. B.K. Paul provided the petitioner satisfies the Enquiry Officer that Mr. B.K. Paul is an official of the trade union of working journalists of which the petitioner is a member.

Mr. Birbal submitted that since the petitioner is being allowed to be represented by a practicing lawyer the management also should be allowed to be represented by a practicing lawyer. This is not an issue arising in this writ petition. The petitioner is being allowed to be represented by Mr. B. K. Paul not because he is a practicing lawyer but because he is an official of the trade union of the working journalists of which the petitioner is a member. However, it is open to the Enquiry Officer to consider the request, if any, made by the management in this regard in accordance with the Standing Orders and the law applicable.

Mr. Birbal further submitted that the enquiry proceedings are likely to be unduly delayed on account of the petitioner being represented by a practicing lawyer and Therefore, a direction may be given that the parties should co-operate with the Enquiry Officer for expeditious conclusion of the Enquiry proceedings and that the Enquiry Officer also may be directed to conclude the proceedings without unnecessary delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to the expeditious conclusion of the enquiry proceedings. Hence the parties are directed to co-operate with the Enquiry Officer for an early conclusion of the enquiry proceedings and respondent No. 3 is directed to proceed with the enquiry, if possible, on day to day basis subject to the convenience of the Enquiry Officer, the parties and their representatives.

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that one of the prayers in the writ petition is for a direction to respondent No. 1 to initiate prosecution proceedings against respondents 2 and 3 for violation of the Standing Orders. On the facts of this case and in view of the materials placed on record, I am satisfied that the impugned action of respondent No. 3 was due to a bona fide error on the part of the Enquiry Officer in understanding and applying the provisions of the Standing Orders. Moreover, respondent No. 2 has fairly conceded that the order of respondent No. 3 was wrong. In these circumstances I do not consider it necessary to direct respondent No. 1 to initiate prosecution proceedings in this case.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also submitted that one of the witnesses of the management has been examined-in-chief and the cross-examination has not been conducted. According to the learned counsel though the examination-in-chief was conducted after the impugned order of respondent No. 3, there is no need to start the entire proceedings afresh since no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner even if the proceedings are continued from the present stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the examination-in-chief of the witness also may be conducted in the presence of Mr. B.K. Paul. Having regard to the entire circumstances of the case I am of the view mat no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by conducting the examination-in-chief of the witness in the absence of Mr. B.K. Paul and that the enquiry proceedings need be continued from the present stage.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that for convenience of all, the parties may be directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on a specified date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. Let the parties appear before the Enquiry Officer on May 9, 1998 at 11-0 a.m.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Copy of the order be given to dusty to the counsel for the parties.