The Inquiring Authority must objectively consider a government servant's request for legal representation and not summarily reject it, as per R.15(6) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960.

1. The petitioner during the material time was a Subject Matter Specialist (Agronomy). He and a colleague of his, Sri Bhaskara Kurup, were placed under suspension by G O E T No.1059/73/AD. dated 5 5 1973. This was followed by Ext. P-1 memorandum of charges dated 7 91973 with the statement of allegations attached thereto. Ext. P-2 is the copy of the answer to the memorandum of charges and statement of allegations, submitted by the petitioner on 3-1-1974 to the second respondent, the Director of Agriculture, Trivandrum. The second respondent accepting the finding of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Trivandrum, who enquired into the charges levelled against the petitioner, passed Ext. P3 order dated 7-12-1974 stopping the next increment of the petitioner for one year with cumulative effect. Ext P-4 is the copy of the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner on 5-2-1975; and Ext. P-5 is order No. G.O. Rt. 3128/75/Ad dated 11-11-1975 passed by the first respondent, the Government of Kerala, disposing of Ext. P-4 appeal, confirming Ext. P-3 order passed by the second respondent. It is aggrieved by Exts. P-3 and P-5 orders that this writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Sri C. M. Kuruvilla, the counsel for the petitioner, attacked Ext. P-3 order on two grounds: (i) the petitioner's request for allowing him to engage a lawyer at the enquiry was rejected by the enquiry officer without applying his mind as to whether he should or he should not exercise the discretion vested in him in that regard; and (2) a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished by the second respondent to the petitioner before the passing of Ext. P-3 order.

3. As for the first contention is concerned, Sri Kuruvilla placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in C L. Subramaniam's case (AIR 1972 SC 2P8). It is submitted by the counsel that the scope of the enquiry and the extent of punishment 'hat could have been imposed as a result of the finding at the enquiry are almost identical both in the Supreme Court case and the case on hand. The Government Pleader has made available to me the Government file relating to the case. In the enquiry report, at page 107 of the file, it is seen that the enquiry officer has stated as follows:

"The accused officer had requested for permission for engaging a legal practitioner. This was not permitted as the Department also was not engaging a counsel."

It is also seen that on 1-1-1974 the petitioner had written with reference to the office memorandum dated 5-6-1974 to the Joint Director of Agriculture, Trivandrum, the Inquiring Authority, to accord permission for engaging a lawyer at the enquiry, and that by bis letter dated 2-7-1974 he bad informed the petitioner as follows: -

"This is to inform you that since the Department is not engaging a legal adviser it is not possible to permit you to engage a legal practitioner. Hence the enquiry is posted to 3-9-1974 itself." (emphasis supplied)

Sri Kuruvilla argued that the enquiry officer would appear to have refused the permission to the petitioner to engage a lawyer to defend him on the assumption that he was helpless in the matter, as the Department did not engage a legal adviser. R.15(6) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, reads as follows:

"The Disciplinary Authority if it is not the Inquiring Authority may nominate any person to present the case in support of the charges before the Inquiring Authority. The Government servant may present his case with the assistance of any other Government servant approved by the Inquiring Authority, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the person nominated by the Disciplinary Authority as aforesaid is a legal practitioner or unless the Inquiring Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits."

I find force in this argument advanced by Sri Kuruvilla. The Inq