Heard finally by consent of the parties at admission stage.

2 The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 20 August 2011 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No.2, whereby his Application to engage legal practitioner to defend in the proceedings of the departmental enquiry as initiated under the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Conduct) Rules, 1967 (for short, “the Conduct Rules”).

3 The events are as under:

On 6 August 20101, Respondent No.2 issued a notice of Departmental Enquiry against the Petitioner under the provisions of Rule 6(2) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, “Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1964”). The charges framed against the Petitioner under the said notices are that inspite of having the first wife the Petitioner has married to another woman and that Petitioner without taking required permission has purchased the immovable property and that the Petitioner is guilty of misconduct while discharging his duties as a teacher.

4 On 18 August 2010, the Petitioner has submitted his reply to the said show cause notice dated 6 August, 20101 thereby specifically denying the allegations and charges levelled against him.

5 On 28 June 2011, the Petitioner filed an Application before Respondent No.2 thereby making a request for engaging legal practitioner to defend him in the proceedings of the Departmental Enquiry in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

6 On 20 August 2011, Respondent No.2 rejected the said Application. Hence this Writ Petition.

7 The relevant Rule 6(5) of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1964 is reproduced as under:

“6 Procedure for imposing major penalties. –

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) The Disciplinary Authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the authority inquiring into the charges (hereinafter referred to as “the Inquiring Authority”). The Parishad servant may present his case with the assistance of any other Parishad servant, but shall not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the person nominated by the Disciplinary Authority as aforesaid is a legal practitioner or the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits.”

8 From the plain reading of above Rule, it is clear that there is no total bar that an employee/delinquent cannot ask permission to engage legal practitioner in any circumstances. It is necessary to consider the words “having regard to the circumstances of the case”.

9 Therefore, if case is made out and the Disciplinary Authority satisfied with the same, such permission to engage legal practitioner to defend the case, can be permitted. There is no question of denying the right to defend through an Advocate if case is made out.

10 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied upon the case of C.L. Subramaniam v. The Collector of Customs, Cochin (AIR 1972 SC 2178), to say that the refusal to permit Government servant to engage a legal practitioner vitiates the enquiry. That case was based upon the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The charges in the present matter against the Petitioner, from his perspective, are quite serious. No-one else can decide and/or compel him to proceed, if he is expressing inability to continue with the Departmental Enquiry in person and, therefore, if an Application is filed with request and if, according to him, the requirement of legal mind is necessary to defend the case, the rejection of this Application, in such fashion, in my view, will affect his right to defend the matter. The consequences of improper defence would be quite serious so far as the Petitioner is concerned. Therefore, full opportunity just cannot be denied to the Petitioner in such fashion by referring to Rules 3, 17 and 20 of the Conduct Rules. The aspect of maintaining integrity, possession of movable/immovable and/or valuable proper