JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP-3435-2023 dated 01.03.2023 wherein the writ petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed.

2. The appellant was challenging the order dated 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-7), wherein his application for permission to engage an advocate/legal practitioner in the departmental enquiry had been rejected. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short 1970 Rules') did not permit such assistance in normal circumstances and only where the punishing authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits, assistance could be taken for engagement of a legal practitioner. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in K.B. Rai v. State of Punjab, 1996 (1) SLR 353 to come to the conclusion that where an employer is represented by officer who was legally trained, the employee would have a right to seek assistance of a legally trained person and then employer could not decline the request for engagement of a legal practitioner. Resultantly, a finding was recorded that merely because the Presenting Officer was a Reader of the Court would not be sufficient to allow the petitioner a legal practitioner in the circumstances.

3. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the binding judgment in Professor Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi & others (2015) 5 SCC 549 has laid down if the Inquiry Officer is a trained legal mind, the denial of assistance of a legal practitioner would be unfair. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment passed by a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Divyesh Govindbhai Kunvariya v. State of Gujarat, 2023 (1) ALLMR 44 wherein also following the said view the benefit was granted, since the Inquiry Officer was the City Civil Judge and the employee was an Assistant in the City Court and being a legal expert, the denial of the legal practitioner had been held to be unfair. It is contended that there was a similar rule of bar of a legal practitioner to be given as a matter of course and the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the representation and, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be allowed.

4. Mr. Chatrath on the other hand appearing for the respondents has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the rule itself lays down an exception and only if the punishing authority having any regard to the circumstances of the case permits, a legal practitioner could be engaged. It is submitted that the whole purpose of departmental inquiry would be frustrated, if legal assistance is to be incorporated as the purpose is to conclude the departmental proceedings at the earliest and not to make it a regular full fledged trial. It is further pointed out that the Reader who was the Presenting Officer himself was not a Law Graduate and assistance of a coworker who had also been a retired Reader had been given for conducting the proceedings before the Inquiry Officer and therefore, both of them did not belong to a legal background. He has further submitted that merely because the Inquiry Office was an Additional District Judge would not be a ground to provide a legal practitioner. It is, accordingly, contended that in case of all departmental proceedings to be held for judicial employees necessarily even a legal practitioner would be required.

5. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are in agreement with the arguments advanced by the counse