The discretion vested with the Enquiry Officer under Rule 7(A) (13) is to be exercised judiciously and with circumspection, and the Enquiry Officer's decision to decline the request for engagement of a counsel was found to be valid and in accordance with the relevant rule.

JUDGMENT

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - Instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by the second respondent i.e. Enquiry Officer-cum-Superintending Engineer, OP Circle, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Karnal, in terms of which an application moved by the petitioners herein seeking sanction for engagement of a counsel to represent them in the enquiry proceedings, has been declined.

2. Brief facts emanating from the pleadings on record may be noticed.

3. Petitioners are serving as Junior Engineers/Junior Engineers-I under the respondent-Nigam. FIR number 389 dated 26.10.2016 was registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamunanagar under Sections 409, 411, 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 137 of Indian Electricity Act as also Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Even though petitioners were not specifically named in the FIR but during the course of investigation, culpability of the petitioners also cropped up and allegations against them were as regards mis-utilization of the Nigam's material and having indulged in corrupt practices. Petitioners were arrested and thereafter they were placed under suspension vide office order dated 07.11.2016. Apart from criminal prosecution, departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioners in terms of serving upon them separate charge-sheets carrying even date i.e.24.05.2017. However, an order dated 20.07.2017 was passed withdrawing the charge-sheets without prejudice to the right of the competent authority to issue charge-sheets afresh. On the same very date i.e. 20.07.2017 fresh charge-sheets were again served upon the petitioners. Copies of the charge-sheets carrying even date i.e. 20.07.2017 have been appended alongwith the writ petition as Annexure P-2 (colly). Petitioners were granted 30 days time to respond to the charge-sheet. However, even prior to expiry of the 30 days time period an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Such action was challenged by the petitioners in terms of filing of CWP No.19715 of 2017 and other connected petitions. The afore-noticed writ petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 01.09.2017 and the following order was passed:-

Inter alia contends that FIR dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) was lodged in which the petitioner was not named. Thereafter, on 24.05.2017 (Annexure P-2), on the strength of the said FIR and on account of the mis-utilization of the Nigam's material, action was proposed under Regulation 7 of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam (Haryana State Electricity Board) Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1990 but the said charge-sheet was withdrawn on 20.07.2017 (Annexure P-3) and a fresh one was issued on the same date (Annexure P-4). Similarly, vide order of even date (Annexure P-5), the Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner, which was to be submitted within 30 days from the receipt of the communication and as per the abovesaid regulations. Under Clause 7(8), the competent authority, on the receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet, is to take a decision not to impose a major punishment, as laid down in Regulations 4 (vi) to (x), by dispensing with the holding of enquiry and inflict straightway any of the minor penalties, as laid down in Clauses (i) to (v) (Annexure P-7). It is, accordingly, contended that by not resorting to the said procedure and appointing an Enquiry Officer straightway, the right of the petitioner has been prejudiced. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in D.H.B.V.N.L. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar & others Vs. Yashvir Singh Gulia, (2013) 11 SCC 173.

Notice of motion for 01.12.2017.

In the meantime, the enquiry proceedings shall remain stayed.

A copy of this order be supplied to counsel for the petitioner(s), under the signatures of Special Secretary of this Court.

Photocopy of this order be placed on the record of each connected case."

4. The respondent-Nigam having been