UTPAL CHATTERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an assistant Sub-Inspector of the Railway Protection Force. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and a preliminary enquiry was held by the Assistant Security Commissioner. The Enquiry Officer being the Assistant Security Commissioner is the primary prosecution witness in the said case. The petitioner approached the disciplinary authority with a prayer for taking assistance of a retired Assistant Security Commissioner, as he felt, that he was not competent to defend his case himself and the assistance of a Sub-Inspector of the Force will not be any match to the expertise of the Assistant Security Commissioner.

(2.) According to the petitioner he is not competent enough to face the main prosecution witness who is a legally trained person and accordingly he requires the assistance of a defense friend in the rank of Assistant Security Commissioner. The prayer for appointment of a retired Assistant Security Commissioner was made as the petitioner had been transferred from Asansol to Malda, where the disciplinary proceeding is being held, and nobody is willing to accept his case for defending him at Malda.

(3.) The prayer of the petitioner was turned down relying on Rule 153.8 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. According to the said Rule an enrolled member shall not be allowed to bring in a legal practitioner at the proceedings but he may be allowed to take the assistance of any other member of the Force as "Friend" to put his defence properly. Such friend must be a serving member of the Force of or below the rank of Sub-Inspector for the time being posted in the same division or the battalion where the proceedings are pending. Such friend shall, however, not be allowed to address the Inquiry Officer nor to cross-examine the witness.