The denial of legal assistance and access to documents in disciplinary proceedings violates natural justice, especially when the accused faces a legally trained opponent.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Ritika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- opposite party No.1 and Shri Asit Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.

2. Shri Shubham Tripathi has filed short counter affidavit and Ms. Ritika Singh has filed supplementary affidavit, which are taken on the record.

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned decision dated 30.03.2025 and 03.05.2025 of the Respondent No.5, copy whereof is contained as Annexure Nos.2 and 3 to this writ petition.

(II) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner for providing legal assistance in the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

(III) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the photocopies of the relevant documents to the petitioner relating to the charges alleged in the Charge-sheet dated 02.09.2024, on the cost to be borne by the petitioner, prior to providing aforesaid with the disciplinary committee.

(IV) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned suspension order dated 05.09.2024, issued by the Respondent No.6, copy whereof is contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

(V) to issued a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned decision dated 30.03.2025 of the Respondent No.5, copy whereof is contained as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition.”

4. By means of the impugned decisions dated 30.03.2025 and 03.05.2025, the petitioner has been refused for providing legal assistance and also providing the photocopies of the relevant documents as sought by the petitioner running into as many as 5133 pages.

5. In support of his Prayer No.II, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: J.K. Aggarwal vs. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. and others reported in (1991) 2 SCC 283 , Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. Dilip Kumar Raghavendra Nath Nadkarni and others reported in (1983) 1 SCC 124 and Ramesh Chandra vs. Delhi University and others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 549. In the case of Ramesh Chandra (supra), the aforesaid judgments have been considered in paras-68 & 69 and observation on such point has been given from paras-67, 68, 69 & 70, which read as under:-

“67. The enquiry officer herein being a retired Judge of the High Court is a person of vast legal acumen and experience. The presenting officer also would be a person who had sufficient experience in presenting case before the enquiry officer. In this background, it is also required to consider whether an application of a delinquent employee seeking permission to be represented through a legally trained and qualified lawyer should be allowed or not.

68. In Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni [ (1983) 1 SCC 124 : 1983 SCC (L&S)