AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—Petitioners have sought for quashing the order at Annexure-A, dated 25.4.2013 passed by the 4th respondent, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for engaging the services of the advocate to defend the petitioners. Records reveal that based on certain allegations, the enquiry is sought to be held against the petitioners by the second respondent-Club. All the petitioners are the members of the said Club. Their membership is suspended due to certain allegations against them. During the course of enquiry, petitioners filed an application for taking assistance of the Lawyer for defending them in the domestic enquiry. The said application is rejected by the impugned order.
Sri. Shanmukhappa, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Enquiry Officer is a Legal Expert/advocate. The Club is represented by a Law Graduate and therefore the petitioners should have been permitted to engage an advocate to defend them. According to him, law on the point has to be interpreted and certain records have to be produced as per law. Therefore, it is necessary to take the assistance of an advocate.
Such a submission cannot be accepted. Undisputedly, the enquiry in question is a domestic enquiry relating to a club/society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Ordinarily it is considered desirable not to restrict the person''s right to be represented by counsel or agent of his choice, but it is different thing to say that such a right is an element of the principles of natural justice and denial thereof would invalidate enquiry. The right to be represented through counsel or an agent can be restricted, controlled or regulated by statutes, rules, regulations or standing orders. The person facing enquiry has no right to be represented through counsel or agent unless the law confers specifically such a right. Rule of natural justice in so far as the person''s right of hearing is concerned, cannot and does not extend to a right to be represented through counsel or agent. {see Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi, }.
In the instant case, the petitioner''s right of representation is regulated by the bye-laws of the second respondent-club which do not expressly permit the Lawyer/legally trained person/Law Graduate to defend the petitioners. In the matter on hand, all the petitioners are the members of the second respondent-Club and they are all educated. They will be knowing the bye-laws of the second respondent-Club very well. They will be well conversant with the second respondent-Club and therefore they would be able to defend themselves.
I may add here itself that each body can laid down its own procedure. The bye-laws are not attributed to the Presenting Officer.
The second contention of Sri. Shanmukhappa, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Presenting Officer is a Law Graduate and therefore the petitioners should be permitted to engage a Law Graduate, also cannot be accepted. The impugned order itself reveals that the Presenting Officer is neither a Law Graduate nor a legally trained person.
Merely because the Enquiry Officer is a legally trained person, it is not open for the petitioners to seek legal assistance. The Enquiry Officer is bound to conduct enquiry as per law and as per the bye-laws of the second respondent-club. Therefore, it is but natural that the enquiry shall be conducted by a legally trained person. Thus, merely because the Enquiry Officer is a Law Graduate or legally trained person, the petitioners cannot take benefit of the same to contend that they should also be allowed to engage a Law graduate.
Since the impugned order is just and proper, no interference is called for. Hence, writ petition fails and accordingly the same stands dismissed.