ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1st December, 2006 passed by the learned single Judge, rejecting the prayer of the appellant/petitioner for allowing him to be represented by a lawyer. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned single Judge has directed for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Authority.
2. The appellant herein was dismissed from service by the Commissioner, MCD under Section 95(2)(b) read with Regulations 9(ii) of the DMC (Control and Appeal) Regulations 1959 after observing that holding of the inquiry is not practicable in this case.
3. As against the said order passed on 07.4.2006, the appellant filed an appeal, which has been transmitted to the respondent No. 1, the Appellate Authority namely Lt. Governor of Delhi.
4. It is contended before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant should be allowed to be represented through a lawyer as otherwise fundamental right of the appellant would be violated.
5. We are unable to agree and accept the contention of the appellant as there is no Fundamental Right or provision in statutes/rules to give such kind of opportunity to the appellant to be represented by a lawyer. Principles of natural justice, require that just and fair opportunity should be given to the appellant to present his case.
6. The appellant has filed the appeal in terms of the provisions of Section 95(4), which provides that an Officer or an employee upon whom a punishment has been inflicted under this Section may appeal to such officer or authority as may be prescribed under the regulations. Proviso thereto states that in case of an officer or an employee appointed by the Commissioner, an appeal shall lie to the Administrator.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid provision, an appeal has been preferred by the appellant, which is required to be dealt with by the appellate authority under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Service (Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1959. Regulation 15, lays down the procedure as to how the appeal filed by an aggrieved person has to be dealt with and disposed of. It is not provided therein that a person who has filed an appeal has to be given an opportunity of being represented through a lawyer.
8. It is also noted that even in the departmental proceedings, an employee has no vested right to be represented by a lawyer and such representation is available only when the authority is represented by a lawyer. In the present case, there was no representation by lawyer and the order was passed by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers vested on him under the provisions of Section 95(2)(b). The Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union has held as under:
27. The basic principle is that an employee has no right to representation in the departmental proceedings by another person or a lawyer unless the Service Rules specifically provide for the same.
9. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
10. It is, however, made clear that we have only dismissed the appeal but have not interfered with the order passed by the learned single Judge directing expeditious disposal of the appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 gives assurance to this Court that the appeal shall be disposed of early and the order passed by this Court will be complied with.
Copy of this order will be given dusty to learned Counsel for the parties.