The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the rule that affords a Government Servant the right to get the assistance of another Government Servant in disciplinary proceedings, and held that the denial of this right to the petitioner was violative of Art.311(2) of the Constitution of India.

1. The petitioner who is a clerk in the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department in Cannanore Division happened to be the secretary of All Indian Postal Employees' Union Class III, Kerala Circle. This Union is affiliated to the National Federation of P. and T. Employees. The National Federation has 9 federated unions and a co-ordinating committee at State level of which the petitioner is the convener. On his election as Circle Secretary he was given a transfer to Trivandrum where he was on deputation to foreign service under the All India Postal Employees' Union Class III, Kerala Circle.

2. The National Federation of Posts and Telegraphs Employees and its affiliated Unions had issued a call for token strike on 19 91968. Consequent on this strike actions were taken against the strikers. On 2910-1968 the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cannanore issued a memorandum containing two articles of charge framed against the petitioner together with the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, in support of the said Articles of charge. A copy of the memorandum containing the Articles of charge and statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of those articles of charge has been produced in these proceedings and marked as Ext. PL The two articles of charge framed against the petitioner are the following:

"Article 1: That the said Shri. N. P. Padmanabhan, Clerk, Cannanore Division (appointed clerk, Uppala S.O.) has organised an illegal strike exhorted the officials to join the demonstrations and to raise funds in aid of the strikers and to adopt "work-to-rule" tactics issued a call for a 'Kerala Bandh on 1010-1968 and criticised the policies of the Central Government and thus violated the provisions of R.3 (1) (iii); 7 (ii); 8 (2) and 12 of CCS (Conduct) R.1964.

Article II: That the said Sri. N. P. Padmanabhan, Clerk, Cannanore Division (appointed Clerk, Uppala S.O.) has by his failure to report for duty on his reversion from foreign service violated provisions of R.40 of P & T Manual, Volume II and R.3 (i) (ii) of CCS. (Conduct) Rules, 19.64."

The charges were enquired into by the Inquiry Officer one Mr. C. G. Menon The petitioner had made written request to the Inquiry Officer for permission to take the assistance of Shri Abraham Kurian, ASPM, Mattancherry at all stages of enquiry as provided for in the CCS (CCA) Rules. Ext. P-2 is the copy of written request that the petitioner had made in the matter. Shri Abraham Kurian had intimated the Inquiry Officer his willingness to assist the petitioner at the enquiry. However, the Inquiry Officer sent a reply to the petitioner's request for assistance by Shri Abraham Kurien as per Ext.-4, wherein it was stated:

"Shri Abraham Kurian, ASPM, Mattancherry under suspension has not been permitted to assist you in the case by the SSP. EK. This is for your information and further necessary action."

According to the petitioner the non-assistance by a competent person at the enquiry has seriously prejudiced him. It would appear that the Inquiry Officer found the Articles of Charge against the petitioner proved. By Ext. P-5 memorandum issued by the Ist respondent, namely the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cannanore Division, he came to the provisional conclusion that the petitioner is not a fit person to be retained in service and therefore proposed to impose on him the penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner was given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed on the basis of the evidence produced during the enquiry. The enquiry report made is produced in this proceedings along with Ext. P-5 memorandum.

3. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner in reply to this show cause notice. There, he requested for dropping further proceedings. He denied the various allegations made against the petitioner. It is stated therein that since the Government of India had framed special rules under the Essential Services Maintenance Ordinance,