Judgment

Special leave granted.

2. We heard Mr. F. S. Nariman for the appellant and Dr. Y. S. Chitale for the first respondent. With the consent of parties we proceed to dispose of the appeal.

3. A charge-sheet was drawn-up against the first respondent for the alleged misconduct and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold the enquiry against the first respondent. Before the enquiry opened, the first .respondent submitted a request seeking permission to engage a legal practitioner for his defence. The Chairman of the appellant rejected this request and simultaneously appointed two officers, namely, Shri R. K. Shetty and Shri A. B. Chaudhary, Legal Adviser and Junior Assistant Legal Adviser respectively of the appellant as Presenting Officers before the Enquiry Officer. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the first respondent with a foot note that his request for permitting him to appear through a legal practitioner in the enquiry has been rejected by the Chairman. As a sequel to the rejection of his request, the first respondent out of compelling necessity submitted a request that Shri V. V. Nadkarni, be permitted to appear in his defence which appears to have been granted. The e