ORDER :

B. Veerappa, J.

The Director and Disciplinary Authority, National Institute of Unani Medicine and two others have filed the present writ petition against the Order dated 03.07.2017 made in Original Application No.170/00321/2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, allowing the Application to the extent that the applicant cannot engage lawyer, but at the same time, she can engage any Government Servant retired or in situ of any department of her choice, as defense assistant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. The respondent/applicant filed O.A.No.170/00321/2017 seeking to quash the Orders dated 28.02.2017 and 02.05.2017 rejecting the request of the applicant to engage the services of a defense assistant who is not an employee of National Institute of Unani Medicine.

4. It is the case of the applicant that she was appointed as Lower Division Clerk/Cashier in the office of the National Institute of Unani Medicine on 18.01.2006 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk/Store Keeper in the year 2015, after successfully completing the probationary period for two years. On 13.09.2015, a Charge Memo came to be issued to the applicant alleging that she had failed to maintain cash book ledger etc for preparation and submission of annual accounts, non submission of re-written cash book and ledger for the year 2014-2015, non-preparation of pay bill and non disbursement of salary etc. The Inquiry Officer, without providing any opportunity to the applicant, submitted the report dated 12.07.2016. Thereafter, second show cause Notice dated 03.08.2016 was issued the applicant. The second respondent, by the Order dated 27.09.2016 appointed fresh Inquiry Officer, who, by the Order dated 28.02.2017 rejected the representation of the applicant to engage Defense Assistant on her behalf to assist her in the Inquiry. The applicant, aggrieved by the said Order, submitted a representation to the second respondent with a request to allow her to engage a Defense Assistant of her choice i.e., to engage either a retired Central Government employee or a serving Central Government Employee, which came to be rejected by the Order dated 02.05.2017.

5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the applicant filed the Original Application for the relief sought for. The Central Administrative Tribunal, considering the contentions of both the parties, allowed the application to the extent that the applicant cannot engage lawyer, but, she can engage any Government Servant retired or in situ of any department of her choice, on the ground that the applicant, as a Government employee under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, is entitled to the best defense she can get. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

7. Sri Amaresh N, learned counsel for the petitioners/National Institute of Unani Medicine, contended with vehemence that the impugned Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the application permitting the applicant to engage any Government Servant retired or in situ of any department of her choice, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and cannot be sustained. He would contend that the petitioner Institution is an autonomous body and its employees cannot be treated as Central Government Employees. The Institute is functioning purely on the grants received from the Ministry of AYUSH. The service conditions of the employees are governed by its own rules and regulations as laid down in its bye-laws, Circulars and the instructions issued by the Management from time to time/Memorandum of Association. In respect of the matters not provided for in the bye-laws, the rules as applicable to the Central Government servants regarding general conditions of service, pay, allowance, TA and daily allowances, foreign service terms, deputation in