MUKESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue notice. Mr Vivekanand Mishra, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that the disciplinary enquiry conducted against him is likely to be prejudicial to him as he has been deprived of the defence assistant of his choice. Charge-sheet in this case was issued on 07.01.2014. It is alleged that the petitioner had used forged medical bills which were reimbursed to him by NTPC. Notice of the enquiry was given on 01.02.2014. The petitioner was, during the course of preliminary hearings, asked to indicate a defense assistant of his choice and submit a list of three such officials/employees. He accordingly did so and one of them Shri Anjanaiya gave his consent letter indicating his willingness to act as the petitioner's defense assistant. On 21.03.2014, the concerned letter was given in Deoli, Rajasthan. The petitioner was subsequently transferred at his request to the DMRC, New Delhi. Later, the Enquiry Officer appointed Shri Anjanaiya and approved his name as defence assistant on 29.07.2014.

(3.) From the above, it is apparent that the controversy is a narrow and limited one i.e. whether the petitioner's right to choose the defense assistant is conditional upon the place of enquiry as being suggested by CISF. Although the first sentence in Rule 36 (8)(a) supports the CISF's contention that the assistance of any member of the Force is dependent on the place of enquiry, at the same time, the second sentence, i.e., the petitioner was given three choice for indicating the defense assistant, in the opinion of the Court, broadens the scope of the rule itself. The basis for providing such an entitlement, rather eligibility of the charged officer to seek defence assistance from within the Force who is not a part of the Force is that he is not permitted to seek legal assistance of a duly qualified lawyer. Equally, he cannot seek any assistance from outside, i.e., he cannot engage any retired personnel or other individual who does not belong to the Force. If these two aspects are kept in mind, the over emphasis on "place of inquiry" in the opinion of the Court, would result in harsh and oppressive consequences.