IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the prohibition under Rule 25(6) of the United India Insurance Company (conduct, discipline and appeal) Rules, 2014 should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis, considering the circumstances of the employee facing the departmental enquiry.

ORDER :

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 3-01-2022 passed by respondents declining to accede to the request of the petitioner for engaging the services of a Legal Practitioner to defend him in the departmental enquiry.

2. Heard Sri.Vittal S Teli, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Arun L Neelopant and Sri.K.S.Jadhav, learned counsel representing the respondent No.1; Sri.N.R.Kuppellur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner is an employee of the United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’ for short). He joins the service of the Company on 14-10-1982 as a Development Officer and was serving as a Divisional Manager at the relevant point in time. When the petitioner was in the cadre of Divisional Manager, he was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-03-2021. Two proceedings emerge prior to his retirement, one registration of a crime in Crime No.10 of 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 197, 209, 120B, 420, 109, 468, 471, 465, 464 r/w 34 of the IPC. Investigation in the said case was pending. At that point in time, charge sheet is issued against the petitioner for conduct of a departmental enquiry on the same set of facts. The charge alleged against the petitioner was that he had, in violation of Company guidelines, settled several matters in a Mega Lokadalath. The petitioner then replies to the charge sheet so issued to him on 17-12-2021. Not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry and a Presenting Officer to present the case on behalf of the Management. The issue in the lis does not concern the veracity of any of the aforesaid facts.

4. In the Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner submits a representation on 28-03-2022 placing a request to engage the services of a Legal Practitioner for the reasons indicated in the representation. This is turned down on the very same day, on the score that the Rules do not permit to engage the services of an Advocate in the Departmental enquiry to defend a delinquent/Charge Sheeted Officer (‘CSO’ for short). This drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. This Court, in terms of its order dated 26-05-2022 grants an interim order of stay of further proceedings in the departmental enquiry. The interim order is in subsistence even as on date. The respondents enter appearance and have filed application seeking vacation of the interim order. Therefore, the matter is considered for its disposal on the consent of the parties.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has hearing disability; he is aged 64 years; he is facing criminal proceedings on the same charge. It is in that light he requested for engaging the services of an Advocate in the departmental enquiry. The request is turned down on the same day without application of mind on the ground that the Rules do not permit. He would submit that the petitioner is entitled, in the peculiar facts of the case, to engage the services of an Advocate to defend him in the enquiry.

6. On the other land, the learned counsel representing the Company would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is aware of the facts against him, he would not require any assistance to defend him in the enquiry, much less. the assistance of an Advocate. He would submit that the Courts have consistently held that right of a CSO to engage the services of a Legal Practitioner shall be only in accordance with the Rules; if there are no Rules, there can be no assistance. He would submit that in the case at hand the Rules specifically prohibit engagement of an Advocate to defend the CSO in an enquiry.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.

8. Be