The appellant did not have an absolute right to legal representation in the disciplinary proceedings, and the appointment of the Enquiry Officer was justified.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is the writ petitioner before this Court. Before the Writ Court, the appellant/writ petitioner has challenged the orders dated 04.11.2022 and 16.11.2022, whereby the request for engaging the legal practitioner to defend him in the disciplinary proceedings, was rejected.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are ranked in the Writ Court.

3. The appellant/writ petitioner was an employee, who was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant. He has been faced with grave charges, for which, an enquiry has been initiated and that he has no exposure to the Departmental Enquiry. He further submitted that as no other co-employee has come forward to assist him and that charge memo has been issued at the instance of the Vice Chancellor, the appellant/writ petitioner made a representation to the Enquiry Officer to enable him to permit assistance in the enquiry. The appellant/writ petitioner also made a representation to the disciplinary authority for the same. The request for availing the assistance of a legal practitioner, was ultimately rejected by the third respondent on the ground that in terms of sub-clause (8) of Rule 9 of the Ordinance governing the control and appeal of the employees of the University (i.e.) Pondicherry University (Control and Appeal) Rules, permission to engage a Lawyer is a bar.

4. It is further contended that the Enquiry Officer being an outsider and that in the absence of the provisions in the aforesaid appeal Rules, the Enquiry Officer ought not to have been appointed for conducting the case, since the Presiding Officer is a legally trained person and the assistance of the legal practitioner to defend the petitioner in the enquiry, is not at all going to cause any harm.

5. The District Judge/Enquiry Officer has got wide experience in the field of law and that the Assistant Registrar of the University who is the Presiding Officer, has good knowledge in his administrative experience and hence, it is the contention of the appellant/writ petitioner that it would be difficult for the appellant/writ petitioner to defend himself in the enquiry.

6. The petitioner is pitted against the respondents with whom there is no knowledge. He reiterated that issuance of charge-sheet was at the instance of the Vice Chancellor of the University. A co-employee was over the field to come and defend the appellant/writ petitioner in the enquiry and hence, he has no other option except to seek the assistance of an outsider, who is none other than a Lawyer.

7. The appellant/writ petitioner further submitted that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, enquiry has been conducted and P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and he could not cross-examine the witnesses and he has been set ex-parte.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner drew the attention of this Court to various decisions of the Courts and contended that the assistance of a Lawyer can be given, even if there is an embargo in the disciplinary Rules applicable to the University.

9. The decision of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, reported in 2015 (5) SCC 549 (Ramesh Chandra Vs. Delhi University) and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1992 (2) LLN 811 (Indian Airlines Corporation Vs. N.Suindaram) are distinguishable on facts and the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the above decision referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner reported in 2015 (5) SCC 549, in which, the facts are quite different from the case on hand, the Apex Court held that even though there is no embargo, the principles of natural justice require that he should not have been engaged by the Management and conducting enquiry for satisfying the enquiry, as the Enquiry Officer, a retired Judge, was a lawyer for the Management. That is not the case here.

10. Admittedly, the appellant/writ petitioner had no personal bias or official bia