Legal representation in disciplinary proceedings not an absolute right; governed by specific rules. Denying a legal practitioner does not infringe self-incrimination rights.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 18.07.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails judgment dated 1 July 2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, [“the Tribunal”, hereinafter] in OA 2347/2024, [Vijender Kumar v DMRC and Ors.]. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has dismissed the OA. Aggrieved thereby, Vijender Kumar, the applicant in the OA, has petitioned this Court.

2. We have heard Mr. Nishaank Mattoo, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Counsel for Respondent 1 at length.

3. Several prayers were made before the Tribunal, and stand reiterated before this Court. However, only two prayers have substantially been urged, both before the Tribunal as well as before us. The first is a challenge to Rule 42(6) of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2021, [“2021 Rules”, hereinafter]. The second is for a stay of further disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, following the issuance of Memorandum dated 4 September 2023⁴, till the conclusion of the criminal case pending against him before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

4. Of these two prayers, too, the essential challenge is to Rule 42(6) of the 2021 Rules.

Facts

5. Inasmuch as the challenge is purely legal, no detailed reference to facts is necessary. A brief allusion thereto would, therefore, suffice. 6. While he was working as Junior Engineer in the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, [DMRC], an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 420/102B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [IPC] at the Ghitorni Police Station, Delhi, on 3 January 2023. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had stolen a TOM, [Ticket Office Machine], including its Central Processing Unit, Card Reader and Crypto from the premises of the DMRC and had installed them at his residence in Greater Noida, from where he was issuing illegally recharged smart cards, which were thereafter sold by one Mohit Gupta, a co-accused, for personal gain. In the process, it was alleged that the DMRC had suffered a loss of ₹28 lakhs.

7. Following the registration of the aforesaid FIR on 3 January 2023, the petitioner and Mohit Gupta were arrested on 4 January 2023.

8. While the criminal proceedings, following the registration of the aforesaid FIR, were in progress, a Memorandum dated 4 September 2023 was issued to the petitioner, under Rule 42 of the 2021 Rules, proposing to institute disciplinary proceedings against him for major penalty. Given the nature of the challenge laid by the petitioner both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court, it is not necessary for us to set out, in detail, the allegations against the petitioner in the aforesaid chargesheet. Suffice it to state that they were substantially similar to the charges which form subject matter of the FIR dated 3 January 2023 and the criminal proceedings which followed thereupon.

9. The petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet on 3 October 2023. On 15 April 2024, he sought permission to engage an advocate as his defence assistant in the disciplinary proceedings. The request was rejected by the DMRC, quoting Rule 42(6) of the 2021 Rules. It is this decision of the DMRC which has provoked the petitioner to challenge the said Rule 42(6) itself. For ready reference Rule 42(6) of the 2021 Rules may be reproduced thus:

“6. The employee may take the assistance of any other public servant/retired public servant but may not engage a legal Practitioner for the pu