By consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to have the assistance of Shri Shernik Runwal, Retired Senior Vigilance Officer, Western Railway as petitioner's Defense Assistant in the departmental enquiry pursuant to the charge memo issued by the first respondent dated 14.08.2015.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was employed as General Manager - Finance & Accounts in the Southern Regional Office of the Container Corporation of India. The first respondent issued a charge memo dated 14.08.2015 containing 19 charges, for which the petitioner submitted his reply on 10.09.2015. The first respondent appointed the third respondent as the enquiry officer.

4. The petitioner would further state that by letter dated 05.11.2015, the petitioner nominated Shri Shernik Runwal, Retired Senior Vigilance Officer, Western Railway as petitioner's Defense Assistant, but the third respondent, vide letter dated 07.11.2015 rejected the nomination of the petitioner informing that the petitioner has to nominate only an employee of the Respondent Corporation as his defense assistant. The petitioner would allege that during the year 2004 – 2005, in similar facts and circumstances, a employee of Customs & Excise Department was allowed to be nominated as defense assistant and therefore the defense assistant of petitioner's choice should also be accepted.

5. The second respondent filed counter affidavit stating that as per Rule 11 (vi) of CONCOR Discipline and Appeal Rules, a person in the employment of the Respondent Corporation including employees, whose services are temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government or subsidiary or any other public undertaking alone can be appointed as defense assistant. Based on the rule, the request of the petitioner was already rejected by the first respondent on 17.11.2015. It is further stated that the request of the petitioner is in violation of the rules and that an error occasioned in according permission for the engagement of an outsider as defense assistant is against the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the appointment of the 3rd respondent is in accordance with Rules.

6. Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as a General Manager – Finance & Accountants in the Container Corporation of India and only two or three higher officials are working in the respondent Corporation. Since the petitioner could not get their assistance, he sought permission for appointment of Shri Shernik Runwal, Retired Senior Vigilance Officer, Western Railway as his Defense Assistant and in order to give a fair chance to the petitioner to defend his case in the disciplinary proceedings, the defense assistant sought for by the petitioner has to be permitted in the disciplinary proceedings. It is further contended that the first respondent who is the disciplinary authority has appointed a retired postal employee as an enquiry officer, while so, there is no reason to reject the request of the petitioner in appointing the Retired Senior Vigilance Officer, Western Railway as his Defense Assistant.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Rules framed by the respondent Corporation does not have statutory force and therefore relying on their own rules, the petitioner cannot be denied fair enquiry. It is his further contention that the earlier rejection of the petitioner's request dated 17.11.2015 is only a communication and therefore the petitioner has not challenged it.

8. Per contra, Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would submit that the prayer sought for in the writ petition is to direct the first respondent to permit the petitioner to have the assistance of a retired Senior Vigilance Officer from the Western Railway, which reque