The court emphasized that alleged procedural irregularities in disciplinary proceedings may not necessarily warrant a change of Enquiry Officer.

The petitioner is a Forester. He was issued a charge memo dated 04.07.2000, making serious allegations under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

2. Later, an enquiry was ordered appointing one Thiru. V. Naganathan, I.F.S., Assistant Conservator of Forest, Tiruvannamalai, as Enquiry Officer by an order dated 21.07.2000 of the 2nd Respondent. At some point of time, the petitioner requested for the change of an Enquiry Officer making certain allegations. His request was considered. A new Enquiry Officer, the 3rd Respondent herein, was appointed by the 2nd Respondent herein by an order dated 110. 2000.

3. At some point of time, here again, the petitioner made a representation dated 112. 2000 to the 2nd respondent for change of Enquiry Officer. This time, the 2nd Respondent passed an order dated 27.06.2001, rejecting the representation dated 112. 2000 of the petitioner, seeking change of Enquiry Officer.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner made an appeal dated 31.07.2001 to the first Respondent against the order dated 27.06.2001 passed by the 2nd respondent. However, the appeal was rejected by the 2nd Respondent by an order dated 09.07.2002. The 1st Respondent passed another order dated 09.08.2002, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

5. In these circumstances, the petitioner, through a lawyer notice, requested the 3rd Respondent not to proceed with the enquiry. The 3rd respondent passed an order dated 011. 2002, rejecting the request made in the lawyer notice.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A.No.6292 of 2002 (W.P.No.5854)to quash the order dated 27.06.2001 and 09.07.2002 of the 2nd Respondent and 09.08.2002 of the 1st Respondent, refusing to change the Enquiry Officer and the order dated 011. 2002 of the 3rd Respondent, rejecting the request made by the petitioner to withhold the enquiry proceeding.

7. Heard Mr. M. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.M. Kirubanandham, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the 3rd respondent acted like a prosecutor and cross examined the departmental witnesses. According to the petitioner, this act of the 3rd respondent is contrary to and in violation of the guidelines contained in the Hand Book of Disciplinary Proceedings published by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department. He has produced the relevant passage of the said guidelines found in chapter III, under the heading "Oral Enquiry" and the relevant portion is extracted here under.

"Do not allow the leading questions except in cross examination. Do not put leading questions to the witnesses yourself".

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 3rd respondent also did not permitted him to engage the retired Government Official, while the same is permissible under the Rule.

10. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the Department was gracious enough to change the Enquiry Officer and appointed the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel states that the petitioner was present only on 02.08.2000, and failed to present on the subsequent hearings on 18.08.2000, 08.09.2000 and 29.09.2000. While so, he came with a request for a change of Enquiry Officer in his letter dated 07.08.2000. When such a request was made, the same was acceded to, as stated above.

11. The 2nd Respondent conceded the said request and appointed the 3rd Respondent as a new Enquiry Officer by an order dated 30.10.2000. Thereafter, the learned counsel states that enquiry was held on all the following dates.

111. 2000

12.08.2002

211. 2000

05.09.2002

112. 2000

23.09.2002

112. 2000

211. 2002

212. 2000

112. 2002

01.08.2001

12. During these days, the witnesses were examined on the side of the Department. The petitioner cross examined those witnesses. The Enquiry Officer put only the question in the na