Order On Board

11/04/2022

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 the enquiry officer in the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner, vide the impugned order the respondent No. 3 has turned down the request of the petitioner for appointment of a lawyer as a defence assistant in the departmental enquiry.

2. The petitioner in the instant case was working on the post of Constable (Trade) in 4th Batallion of the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, at Raipur. The said petitioner has been subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and whereas charge-sheet was issued on 14.02.2022. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had without the notice and knowledge of the senior officers in the department received uniform clothes from Mahasamund District and supplied only 462 uniforms instead of 547 and also retained the stitching charges of an amount of Rs. 3,00,850/- illegally, without any authority or permission from the higher authority in the department. Thus, on the charge of violation of Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and the Regulation 64(4) of the Police Regulations, the petitioner has been subjected to disciplinary proceeding.

3. The respondent No. 3 was appointed as the Enquiry Officers and the respondent No. 4 was appointed as the Presenting Officer. In the midst of the disciplinary proceeding the petitioner moved an application seeking for permission to appoint a lawyer as a defence assistant and the petitioner had proposed appointment of one Advocate Hemendra Dewangan as his defence assistant in the departmental enquiry. It is this application the stands rejected by the respondent No. 3 the Enquiry Officer which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

4. The contention of the petitioner was that both the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 that is the Enquiry Officer as also the Presenting Officer being high ranking officers in the department, they are person which sufficient legal experience and therefore, in order to get a proper defence before these officers, the petitioner had requested for availing the assistance of a lawyer which has been turned down under the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon (1991) 2 SCC 283 and also (1986) 2 LLJ 62, the two decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also from the Bombay High Court respectively in support of his contentions. 5. According to the petitioner since the petitioner herein was only a low ranking officer of the Constable Rank, he does not have practical experience in the legal field. Therefore, he would not be in a position to properly defend himself while facing the respondents No. 3 and 4 in the Departmental Enquiry. Hence, it was required that the respondents should have allowed this application permitting him to engage a lawyer to defend him.

6. The State counsel on the other hand submits that a rule do not permit the petitioner to avail the facility of a lawyer as a defence assistant and the department as such does not have a difficulty if the petitioner intends to avail the benefit of a defence assistant by engaging any other person from the department to represent the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer. It is the further contention of the learned Additional AG that it is not a case where the respondents No. 3 and 4 the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer are people from legal background but they are only officers of the department only the petitioner also is a member and therefore, since the respondents No. 3 & 4 do not come from the legal background there was no necessity for the petitioner to be permitted to avail the services of a lawyer to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer. The writ petition therefore, deserves to be rejected on this ground.

7. Having heard the contention put forth on either side and on perusal of record, apparently, on going through the pleadings the fact the wr