The denial of legal assistance to an employee in a departmental enquiry, despite the presence of a legally trained presenting officer, violates the principles of natural justice and the employee's right to effective defence.

V. Dhanapalan, J.

1. Heard Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Vijayashankar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

2. Seeking to quash the order of the 1st respondent – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), dated 22.01.2014 in O.A.No.1695 of 2013 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to conduct enquiry in respect of the charge memo dated 30.10.2012 bearing No.TB/PDY/ADM/VIG/S.J.VELU/2012 after permitting him to engage a legal practitioner to assist him in the enquiry, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition.

3. Facts leading to the filing of this case are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner joined the services of the 2nd respondent - Employees Provident Fund (EPF) Organisation on 19.01.1978 as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC). In the course of time, he gained promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC), Senior Assistant and Section Supervisor. During the year 2010, he was working in the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Royapettah, Chennai, as Section Supervisor.

3.2. On 10.05.2010, based on a false complaint, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) implicated the petitioner in a false case as if the petitioner demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.5,000/-, pursuant to which, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.05.2010. Thereafter, the order of suspension was revoked and he was reinstated on 01.11.2010 and posted as Section Supervisor in the Sub-Regional Office, Puducherry. The CBI initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.25 of 2010 by the XIV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai (CBI Court), in which, by a judgment dated 10.10.2013, punishment of one year Rigorous Imprisonment was imposed. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court in Criminal Appeal No.721 of 2013, whereby, the punishment imposed on the petitioner was suspended.

3.3. While so, the 2nd respondent issued a Charge Memo dated 30.10.2012. The allegation in the charge memo as also the criminal proceedings rest on the same set of facts. The documents and witnesses are also same. On receiving the charge memo, the petitioner gave an explanation dated 22.01.2013 denying the charges levelled against him. He also made a representation dated 20.06.2013 to drop the charges. However, the 2nd respondent decided to proceed with the enquiry in respect of the charge memo dated 30.10.2012 and nominated the 3rd respondent as the Inquiry Officer.

3.4. In the criminal proceedings, the petitioner had the assistance of a legal practitioner, through whom he was able to cross-examine the witnesses and demonstrate as to how the allegations levelled against him are not correct. The witnesses who have been examined in the criminal proceedings are cited as witnesses in the departmental enquiry proceedings. The witnesses so relied upon by the Department are three Inspectors of Police – CBI; Sub-Inspector of Police – CBI; two Police Constables-CBI; Office Superintendent – CPWD; Travelling Ticket Examiner – Southern Railways; Accountant of one S.S. Annamalai Enterprises, etc. Therefore, to cross-examine those witnesses in reference to the documents relied upon by the Department, the petitioner requires the assistance of a legal practitioner to effectively defend him. In such circumstances, the petitioner made representations dated 14.11.2013 and 21.11.2013 to the 2nd respondent seeking permission to avail the assistance of a legal practitioner. Unfortunately, the 2nd respondent by an order dated 27.11.2013 rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that the Presenting Officer is not a legal practitioner and that the Departmental Enquiry is not court proceedings requiring legal expertise. The said order was received by the petitioner on 30.11.2013.

3.5. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent commenced the enquiry by examining one Mr. N. Annavu (P.W.1) and the petitioner was compelled to