( 1 ) THE question for consideration in this writ petition is whether a Government Servant is entitled to have the assistance of a lawyer during a departmental enquiry. Te] Pal Singh is the petitioner. Ha worked as District Judge at Etah from August 1661 to July 1963. Sri R. S. Misra was posted as Civil Judge at Etah. In June 1964 the District Judge made a confidential report to the Registrar of the High Court against Sri R. S. Misra. Against that report Sri R. S. Miara made a representation to the High Court in November 1963. It was stated in the representation that the District Judge was annoyed with one clerk, Mathur. The petitioner suggested to the Superintendent of Police that some clothes should be planted in Mathurs house. Subsequently Mathurs house should be searched. In this way Mathur should be falsely implicated. In view of those allegations contained in the representation of Sri R. S. Misra, the High Court started a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner requested that he should be permitted to have assistance of a counsel before the enquiring officer. The request was turned down by the High Court. Tej Pal Singh has, therefore, filed this petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to be defended by an advocate of his choice. There is also a prayer for a writ of certiorari quashing the order, dated 8 October 1964. The Chief Justice is respondent 1 in the writ petition. The Registrar of the High Court is respondent 4. Members of the Administrative Committee were subsequently added as respondents. The enquiry is now being held by Justice Sri Manchanda. He is respondent 11 in the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for some respondents raised a preliminary objection that we have no jurisdiction to issue any writ under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Judges of the High Court. Since the writ petition fails on merits, I consider it unnecessary to deal with the preliminary objection.

( 3 ) ANNEXARE A to the writ petition is a copy of the petitioners application dated 30 September 1964 for assistance of a lawyer. Annnexurs B to the petition is a copy of the Joint Registrars reply dated 8 October 1964 to the effect that the petitioner cannot be permitted the assistance of a counsel. One counter-affidavit has been filed by Justice Sri V. Bhargava, respondent 2, who was formerly the Administrative Judge. Another counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri P. N. Goel, Joint Registrar of the High Court. The petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavits.

( 4 ) THE first contention of Sri S. N. Misra appearing for the petitioner is that the counter-affidavit are not admissible in evidence. The counter-affidavit were not filed within the time initially allowed to the respondents. On 7 January 1965, the Senior Standing Counsel, Sri Shanti Bhushan, filed an application for time. The Joint Registrar passed an order allowing the respondents one months time for filing counter-affidavits. The first counter-affidavit was filled on 29 January 1965. The second counter-affidavit was filed on 5 February 1965. Sri S. N. Misra contended that Sri Shantl Bhushan had no power to file the application,dated 7 January 1965 on behalf of the respond ants. So she Joint Registrars order allowing further time should not be recognized by the Court. Sri S. N. Misra pointed out that Sri Shanti Bhushan never filed any vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents. Sri S Bhushan filed a slip of appearance. Sri Misra contended that that is not enough. A vakalatnama was necessary.

( 5 ) SRI Misra relied upon order 3, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code. Order 3, Rule 4, states: (1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by same other person duly authorized by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment