The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant is entitled to engage a legal practitioner for assistance in a disciplinary proceeding, as provided under Rule 15(5) of the Orissa Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1962, and the inquiring officer has no authority to interfere with the permission granted by the Disciplinary Authority.

JUDGMENT

This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Swain, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. R. Mishra, learned AGA for O.Ps.

2. Short question involved herein is as to when the Rule 15(5) of the Orissa Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1962 hereinafter in short be called as 'the Rules, 1962' permits a Government servant to take assistance of a legal practitioner to present his case before the inquiring authority and when the Disciplinary Authority has already permitted the delinquent to take assistance of a legal practitioner, whether the inquiring officer is justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the matter of engagement of legal practitioner on behalf of him?

3. Taking this Court to the plea taken in the communication vide Annexure-7 Mr. Swain, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that since the Department is examining Officers higher in position than the petitioner appearing as department witnesses, petitioner being a Constable is feeling insecure to crossexamine and/or putting questions to the witnesses(s) and it is, only on this context, the delinquent prayed for taking assistance of legal practitioner.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned AGA, however, taking this Court to the provision at Rule 15(5) of the Rules, 1962 submitted that the permission to engage a legal practitioner arises only in the event the Department takes assistance of the legal practitioner, though however, did not dispute to the subsequent part in the Rule 15(5) of the Rules, 1962 authorizing the Disciplinary Authority to permit the Government Servant to be represented by a legal practitioner in special contingency. Taking this Court to the facts of the case and the reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority Mr. Mishra, learned AGA submitted that considering this aspect, the Disciplinary Authority has permitted the petitioner to take assistance of a legal practitioner and thus submitted that the order of the inquiring officer appears contrary to the direction of the Disciplinary Authority. Mr. Mishra, learned AGA, however attempted to justify the impugned order on the premises that since the disciplinary authority doesn't take assistance of legal practitioner, therefore the delinquent cannot be permitted to take assistance of a legal practitioner.

5. In the circumstance, Mr. Mishra, learned AGA submitted that there is no fault in the impugned order requiring interference of this Court.

6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, at the first instance in disposal of a Writ Petition bearing No.24249 of 2020, this Court by order dated 24.09.2020 has passed the following order:

'The petitioner has filed an application / representation, vide Annexure-9, before the Disciplinary Authority to allow him to engage a Defence Assistant in D.P. No.11 of 2019 initiated against him on the basis of a criminal proceeding. The said representation / application vide Annexure-9 is still pending before the authority concerned.

Regard being had to the facts and submission and the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner, without going into the merit of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the concerned Disciplinary Authority to dispose of the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-9 on merit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order / true soft copy of the order available in High Court's Website. The Disciplinary Authority is further directed to satisfy the demand of law that, in the Disciplinary Proceeding opportunity of effective hearing should be afforded to the delinquent.

The petitioner is directed to supply a certified copy of this order / true soft copy of this order available in the High Court's Website along with a copy of the writ petition containing all the Annexures to Opposite Party Nos.3, 4 & 5 for convenience and reference to Annexure-9.'

7. On reading of the aforesaid order this Court finds, there is scope provided to the auth