IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and WMP.Nos. 5322 & 5323 of 2026 Trilokee Nath Tiwari ..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Director General, CISF Head Quarters, No.13, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.

2. The Inspector General, CISF, Head quarters, South Sector, Chennai Port Trust Campus, Near War Memorial, Chennai – 600 009.

3. The Senior Commandant, CISF Unit, NLC Neyveli, No.G-14, J.N.Salai Block No. 16, NLC Township Neyveli, District: Cuddalore, State- Tamil Nadu 607 801

4. The Enquiry Officer, Shri Prahlad Singh Devenda Inspector/

Exe CISF, Unit NLC Neyveli, No. G-14, J.N.Salai, Block No. 16, NLC Township Neyveli, District: Cuddalore, State- Tamil Nadu 607 801.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for records of the respondents culminating in the order Ref. No. CISF/ NLC/ A- SECTOR/ DE/ TNT/ 26-19 dated 07.01.2026 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to avail the defence assistant from any outstation CISF unit Personnel for conduct of Departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the Charge Memorandum ref .No.

V-15014/ CISF/ NLC/ Disc/ Maj (15) / TNT / 2025- 5017 dated 20.12.2025.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Hari Krishnan For Respondent(s): Mr.K.V.Muthu Visakan Senior Panel Counsel

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.01.2026 and consequently, for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to avail the defence assistant from any outstation CISF unit Personnel for conduct of Departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the Charge Memorandum dated 20.12.2025.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Head Constable at CISF Unit, Neyveli and while he was in service, he was issued with charge memo consisting of four charges. He would submit that when facing charges before the Enquiry Officer, he is entitled to have Defence Assistant from the member of CISF. However, in the NLC Unit, no one has come forward to give assistance as defence counsel on behalf of the petitioner however, one Jonaki Dass, CISF, BSCC has agreed to appear as a Defence counsel on behalf of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer and with her consent, the petitioner made a representation on 06.01.2026 and the same was rejected. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per Rule

36(8)(a) of the CISF Rules, the enrolled member of the Force so charged may be permitted to take assistance of any other member of the Force posted at the place of inquiry and he will have three charges for the defence assistance and the controlling officer will depute anyone of the three indicated by him however, contrary to the above said rule, the present impugned order is passed. He would further submit that the Enquiry Officer insist the petitioner to take a defence counsel in the NLC Unit, which is not acceptable. He would also submit that since no one is come forward to act as a defence counsel in the Neyveli Unit thereby, the petitioner take defense assistance from the other Unit which is clearly in terms of 36(8)(a) of the CISF Rules. Accordingly, he prayed for appropriate orders.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that since the petitioner not took a defence assistant from the NLC Unit, thereby, the present impugned order is passed in terms of Rule 36(8)(a) of the CISF Rules, which need not be interfered with. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

6. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. The