A petitioner has the right to choose a defense assistant in disciplinary inquiries, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice as per applicable rules.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.: (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging orders dated 16th January, 2021, 10th March, 2021 and 24th March, 2021 whereby the petitioner's representations have been rejected. Petitioner also seeks a direction to respondent no.2 to consider and finalize the petitioner's request for providing defence assistance and to video record the proceedings.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner while posted at CISF Unit Taj Mahal, Agra lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against her superior official i.e. the Dy. Commandant of the Unit. However, he states, the complaint was dismissed by the Court of CJM-IV, Agra. He further states that due to the aforesaid rejection of petitioner's case, a consequential charge sheet had been issued and the inquiry proceedings had been started without providing a defence assistance to the petitioner.

3. He submits that the petitioner has been denied proper defence assistance in accordance with Rule 36 (8)(a) of CISF Rules 2001, which stipulates that the Inquiring authority may permit the charged member of force to present his/her case "with the assistance of any other member of force posted at the place of inquiry". According to him, the impugned act of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice. He also prays that enquiry proceedings be directed to be videographed. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh & Others, SLP (Crl.) No. 3543/2020 decided on 02nd December, 2020. The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"2. This Court, vide Order dated 03.04.2018 in SLP (Crl) No. 2302 of 2017, reported as Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 311, directed that a Central Oversight Body (hereinafter referred to as the "COB") be set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs to implement the plan of action with respect to the use of videography in the crime scene during the investigation. This Court while considering the directions issued in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal & Others (2015) 8 SCC 744, held that there was a need for further directions that in every State an oversight mechanism be created whereby an independent committee can study the CCTV camera footages and periodically publish a report of its observations thereon. The COB was further directed to issue appropriate instructions in this regard at the earliest.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

19. The Union of India is also to file an affidavit in which it will update this Court on the constitution and workings of the Central Oversight Body, giving full particulars thereof. In addition, the Union of India is also directed to install CCTV cameras and recording equipment in the offices of:

(i) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

(ii) National Investigation Agency (NIA)

(iii) Enforcement Directorate (ED)

(iv) Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)

(v) Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)

(vi) Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)

(vii) Any other agency which carries out interrogations and has the power of arrest.

As most of these agencies carry out interrogation in their office(s), CCTVs shall be compulsorily installed in all offices where such interrogation and holding of accused takes place in the same manner as it would in a police station.

The COB shall perform the same function as the SLOC for the offices of investigative/enforcement agencies mentioned above both in Delhi and outside Delhi wherever they be located.

20.The SLOC and the COB (where applicable) shall give directions to all Police Stations, investigative/enforcement agencies to prominently display at the entrance and inside the police stati