Dipak Misra, J.

The correctness of the order dated 22-1-2002 passed in W.P. No. 308/2002 by the learned single Judge has been called in question in this appeal invoking the clause 10 of Letters Patent.

The facts which are essential to be stated to appreciate the factual scenario are that the petitioner was appointed as a LDC in the office of the District and Sessions Judge on 19-10-1959. He was promoted to the post of UDC in the month of April, 1980. He joined as Nazir in the District Court Jabalpur on 10-5-1989. As time rolled by, he was superannuated on 29-11-1997. As pleaded, on the date he was bidding adieu to his job, he was served with the charge-sheet vide Annexure P-1. The charge-sheet covered seven articles of charges. What happened thereafter is not of much consequence and need not be dwelled upon by us. It is not disputed that an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The presenting officer in the rank of Superintendent of Office was appointed. In the meantime when the Departmental proceeding was in continuance a criminal case No. 1242 was instituted against him for an offence punishable u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code. At this juncture, the petitioner filed three applications vide Annexure P-2 to P-4 before the enquiry officer seeking three reliefs, namely, the enquiry proceeding should be kept in abeyance till the criminal case is over; the relevant documents which were mentioned in the application should be supplied to him; and that he may be permitted to engage a" legal practitioner to defend his case. The enquiry officer negatived all the prayers of the petitioner. Being dissatisfied the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the order passed by the enquiry officer.

Before the learned Single Judge it was contended that when the charges levelled against him and criminal prosecution stand on a similar footing the departmental proceeding should be stayed otherwise gross prejudice would be caused to him. It was also putforth that if the relevant and requisite documents were not supplied to him that would violate sacrosanct principle inhered in audi alteram partem and hence, a command may be issued to supply the documents which find mention in Annexure P-2. It was also contended before the learned single judge that the enquiry officer is in the rank of Additional District Judge and the presenting officer is an office Superintendent and in view of the obtaining factual matrix petitioner should be allowed to engage a legal practitioner. The learned Single Judge elaborately adverted to the seven charges levelled against the petitioner and came to hold that scope of the departmental enquiry in respect of the charges concerned and scope of criminal prosecution in respect of offence u/s 409 of Indian Penal Code are in different realms and there is no justification for granting stay of further proceeding before the enquiry officer. As far as the second facet is concerned the learned single Judge directed the petitioner should be supplied the certified copies of the relevant documents. While so directing he added a qualifier that the enquiry officer has to be guided by the principle of relevancy of documents and should not accede to prayer of the petitioner if the document is not really required for the purpose of fair and proper enquiry. As far as the last limb of prayer is concerned, the learned single Judge expressed the view that seeking to be represented by the legal practitioner in the departmental enquiry is not an absolute right and the case at hand did not warrant such an engagement. Being of this view the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

Impugning the aforesaid order it is submitted by Mr. Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner that if the departmental proceeding is not stayed the petitioner would be compelled and constrained to disclose its defence in the departmental proceeding which would ca