NANI GRAYU Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. D. Lazi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, for State respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the office order No. DE -OI8/2NDBN/NG/7 dated 21.8.2008 issued by the Commandant, 2nd APP Bn., BHQ, Aalo, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

(3.) MR . Lazi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent authorities violated the principles of natural justice in conducting the departmental proceeding against the petitioner inasmuch as no Presenting Officer was appointed and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to appoint a Defence Assistant which is his constitutional right. The failure to appoint the Presenting Officer and providing the opportunity to engage Defence Assistant to the petitioner is a serious procedural lapse vitiating the order of dismissal. According to him, once the respondent authority initiates departmental proceeding, it must follow the procedures laid down in the rules and follow the principles of natural justice. In the present case, according to him, the Presenting Officer having not been appointed, the Inquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor as well as judge himself which is not permissible under the law. The delinquent being a low paid employee in the lowest rank in the post of Constable Driver needs Defence Assistant to defend his case effectively and by way of not providing him any opportunity to engage a Defence Assistant, the respondent authorities have denied the opportunity of effective defence in the departmental proceeding. In regard to law relating to appointment of Presenting Officer and Defence Assistant, he would cite the following cases :