The rules governing domestic inquiries regulate the right to engage external representation, and such rights are not inherent but statutory.

1 The question that has come up for consideration in this case is as to whether petitioner who is an officer of the Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation can insist that she should be allowed to appoint a competent and qualified person from outside the institution as per defence assistant in the enquiry proceedings.

2 Petitioner while working as Deputy Manager (Administration) in the service of the first respondent Corporation was served with a memo of charges alleging that she failed to take timely action in realising the dues like room rent and charges for food and beverages from the guests who occupied the Keltron Guest House Thiruvananthapuram during the period from 14.1.1995 to 18,5.1996. It is alleged that she failed to give correct and timely answers/clarifications to audit query No.7 dated 12.6.1996 etc. Petitioner submitted explanation to the memo of charges vide Ext. P2 dated 27.2.1997. First respondent however, by order dated 15.3.1997 suspended the petitioner from service pending enquiry proceedings. During the enquiry proceedings petitioner made a request to the enquiry officer to permit her to appoint one qualified person from outside the institution as defence assistant. Enquiry office rejected the plea of petitioner to engage a legal assistant vide Ext. P5 order dated 6.6.1997. Petitioner's further request for engaging a defence assistant from outside the institution was also rejected by the enquiry officer vide Ext. P8 letter dated 21.6.1997. While rejecting the said request it was pointed out that petitioner can avail of the service of any other employee of the Corporation as her defence assistant. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents to allow the petitioner to appoint a competent and qualified person from outside the institution as defence assistant.

3 According to the petitioner, since enquiry officer being a practising lawyer, petitioner ought to have been permitted to appoint an Advocate for conducting enquiry. It is also her case the presenting officer is a legally trained person and has been handling the disciplinary proceedings for the last more than 10 years. It is also stated that petitioner being Deputy Manager (Administration) it is difficult for her to get defence assistant holding a higher post than that of the petitioner. Counsel also submitted there is no restriction in the standing orders from engaging defence assistants outside the institution and also to engage a lawyer.

4 When the matter came up for hearing I heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents. Counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no provision in the standing orders enabling the petitioner to engage a defence assistant from outside the institution or a lawyer in the disciplinary proceedings. I perused the Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Conduct Discipline & Appeal R.1986. The provision which we are concerned in this case is extracted below.
"Rule 20. Procedure for imposing Major Penalties.
(1) No order imposing any of the major penalties-specified in clauses (e), (f) and (g) of R.19 shall be made except after an enquiry is held in accordance with this rule .................
(5) The competent authority is entitled to appoint a presenting officer to present the management's case before the enquiring authority. The presenting officer so appointed shall be an employee of the Corporation.
(6) The employee may take the assistance of another employee of the Corporation."
There is no provision in the rules which permits the petitioner to engage a defence assistant from outside the institution or a trained lawyer. As per rules the Corporation also cannot avail of the benefit of a practising lawyer for conducting the disciplinary proceedings. In other words, both the presenting officer as well as the defence assistance would be employees of the Corporation.

5 Counsel for the pet