Article 14
RAJ KUMAR
(Querist) 01 August 2014
This query is : Resolved
RESPECTED SIRS,
PLEASE GO THROUGH THE REGULATION FOR DEFENCE REPRESENTATIVE IN DISCIPLINARY CASES. IS IT NOT VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 AS IT RESTRICTS THE RIGHT OF EQUALITY AT THE DISCRETION OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY.
'The Officer-employee may take the assistance of any other officer employee but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the 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.’
IF NOT WHY?
Laxmi Kant Joshi
(Expert) 02 August 2014
Your query is not clear give complete facts of the case.
Guest
(Expert) 02 August 2014
Discuss your real problem.
P. Venu
(Expert) 02 August 2014
There is a fair chance for success, if the issue is taken for judicial review.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 03 August 2014
Incomplete infromation and prima facie it is an academic query.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 03 August 2014
Without the details or background of the case, the query appears to be an academic query, hence I go by the experts on it.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 07 August 2014
To settle a question regarding constitutionality more particularly Article 14 of the Indian Constitution disclosure of the entire facts are to be considered as material circumstances to ascertain the applicability and conflict related to.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 08 August 2014
In continuation to my above post and in connection thereof I NEED MENTION FURTHER that in interpreting Article 14 of our constitution it is permissible to refer to the decisions of the American Courts upon the equal protection clause of the AMERICAN CONSTITUTION because Dr. Ambedkar borrowed the clause 'RIGHT TO EQUALITY' from American Constitution.
Be it noted that Equal Protection means the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed.
The principal of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position, as the varying needs of different classes of persons often require seperate treatment.
RAJ KUMAR
(Querist) 10 August 2014
THANKS TO ALL PARTICIPANTS. SPECIAL THANKS TO SH. BISWANATH ROY AND SH. P VENU FOR UNDERSTANDING THE QUERY. THE GIVEN FACTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO COMMENT UPON THE RIGHT OF EQUALITY. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY ALLOWS THE DELINQUENT EMPLOYEE TO ENGAGE A LAW PROFESSIONAL AT THEIR DISCRETION SO IT IS VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF EQUALITY UNDER ARTICLE 14.
Guest
(Expert) 10 August 2014
It seems you are shy of giving any background of the case. If as per your latest post you feel like, "THE GIVEN FACTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO COMMENT UPON THE RIGHT OF EQUALITY," I can say the already given comments are sufficient to serve your purpose, as based on your academic query. Don't expect that the experts can start a tutorial class for you just to have a discussion on your academic query.
If you don't have any personal problem and want mere discussion on your own perception, you may better post your query in the "FORUM" section.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 10 August 2014
Well said by expert Mr.Dhingra, I stand by your views on the subject issue.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 11 August 2014
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/SERVICE-MATTER-427086.asp#.U-gL0qNvdG0
on that thread also you gave no facts and go t no advise.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 11 August 2014
If you are sure that provision is unconstitutional and move ahead. You have been advised based on given facts.
