S SELVAM Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The petitioner was employed as a Grade I Police Constable. He filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent - the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore Sub Division, Namakkal dated 20.7.2009 and for a consequential direction to permit the petitioner to engage a lawyer and to proceed with the enquiry pursuant to the charge memo issued by the first respondent.

(3.) By the impugned order dated 20.7.2009, the petitioner was informed that though he was permitted to engage a lawyer to assist him in the oral enquiry, but it is subject to the condition that the lawyer should not cross examine the prosecution witness during the oral enquiry. In effect, according to the second respondent, the lawyer should be present as an observer during the oral enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.