ORDER

Nagu, J:- 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by a delinquent employee facing disciplinary proceedings initiated by charge sheet (Annexure-P/1), assailing order dated 4.9.2021 passed by Inquiry Officer denying request of petitioner/delinquent employee for passing necessary directions to the Controlling Authority of the proposed defence assistant to relieve the said proposed defence assistant to enable petitioner to exercise his right to defend himself.

2. The Inquiry Officer while passing the impugned order had directed that petitioner/delinquent employee is free to arrange for defence assistant as proposed by him for which last opportunity is afforded.

3. It is informed that the proceedings have last been adjourned due to none presence of defence assistant and are now posted in the first week of January, 2022.

4. To take assistance of defence assistant, is a statutory right of delinquent employee, as per the provisions of rule 14 of M.P. Civil C.C.A. Rules. The relevant provisions of the said rule are reproduced as below:-

“The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits.”

5. If a delinquent employee proposes a defence assistant who is employed elsewhere then the Inquiry Officer ought to take the initiative and pass necessary directions to ensure that the delinquent employee does not remain unrepresented leading to denial of his right to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer in all fairness should request in writing to the Controlling Officer of the proposed defence assistance to act as defence assistant provided there is no other legal impediment. The Inquiry Officer should not leave the delinquent in a lurch. Inquiry Officer ought to remember that he is not a prosecutor but an independent and impartial arbiter and umpire whose prime object is to conduct & conclude the disciplinary proceedings in a fair and impartial manner following the principles of natural justice.

6. However, learned counsel for petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court an executive instruction issued by GAD, Govt. of M.P. dated 18.6.1974 which deals with an issue raised herein and thus for ready reference and convenience the same is reproduced below:

^^fo"k;% e/; Áns'k flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;U=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ds vUrxZr foHkkxh; tkap esa 'kkldh; lsod }kjk vU; 'kkldh; lsod dh lgk;rk ysus ds lEcU/k esaA
1- e/; Áns'k flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;U=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e] 1966 ds fu;e 14¼8½ ds vUrxZr vfHk;qDr 'kkldh; lsod viuh vksj ls ekeyk ÁLrqr djus ds fy, fdlh vU; 'kkldh; lsod dh lgk;rk ys ldrk gSA ,slk djus ds fy;s mls tkap Ákf/kdkjh ;k vuq'kklfud Ákf/kdkjh ls vuqefr ysus dh vko';drk ugha gS fdUrq ftl 'kkldh; lsod dks foHkkxh; tkap esa lgk;rk djus ds fy;s cqyk;k tkrk gS mls vius ofj"B vf/kdkjh ls ml dk;Z ds fy;s vuqifLFkr jgus dh vuqefr ysuh gksxhA bl lEcU/k esa vkidk /;ku bl foHkkx ds fnukad 11 tuojh] 1971 ds Kkiu Øekad 32&1&1090&,d ¼3½&70 ds iSjkxzkQ 2 dh vksj Hkh vkÑ"V fd;k tkrk gS ftlesa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd tkap Ákf/kdkjh@vuq'kklfud Ákf/kdkjh dks pkfg, fd os lgk;rk djus okys 'kkldh; deZpkjh ds ofj"B vf/kdkjh dks lwfpr djsa fd muds v/khuLFk deZpkjh foHkkxh; tkap esa ennxkj ds :i esa dk;Z dj jgk gSA ,slh lwpuk ÁkIr gksus ij ofj"B vf/kdkjh dk ;gka drZO; gks tkrk gS fd ml 'kkldh; lsod dks fu;r frfFk ij vfHk;qDr 'kkldh; lsod dh lgk;rk djus ds fy;s vius dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr jgus dh vuqefr Ánku djus esa rc rd fdlh Ádkj dh vkifRr u djsa tc rd fd mudh vuqifLFkfr ls fdlh 'kkldh; vifjgk;Z dk;Z esa :dkoV u iM+rh gksA
2- vfHk;qDr 'kkldh; lsod dsoy mlh 'kkldh; lsod dh lgk;rk ys ldrk gS tks 'kkldh; lsok esa dk;Zjr gks] Hkys gh og fuyfEcr D;ksa u gks] fdUrq og lsokfuo`Rr 'kkldh; lsod dh lgk;rk ugh