Short Note : Held : The submission made before us by the learned counsel was that the petitioner submitted an application that he should be allowed to engage a counsel and this was refused. Because of this refusal a reasonable opportunity to defend was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner, in his application only mentioned that the case is an old one and he does not remember the facts. Therefore, he wants to engage a counsel. We are of the opinion that this ground has no substance in it. We fail to understand as to how by engaging a counsel, the petitioner could have remembered the things which he had already forgotten. The next point mentioned in the application is that there are legal complications and therefore, he should be allowed to engage a counsel, but what legal complications were there, the learned counsel was not in a position to submit before us. Therefore, this submission of his also cannot be accepted. We may refer here to a judgment of this Court in H.C. Pathak v. Registrar Co-operative Societies, M.P. ( 1965 JLJ 1102 ) in which this point was considered. In that case a handwriting expert was called for on behalf of the Government and the question was regarding cross-examining a handwriting expert regarding certain signatures Naturally, to cross-examine a handwriting expert, a counsel is required and if that opportunity is not given to the petitioner, then the Court has held that it may amount that he was denied a reasonable opportunity. It is better to quote what the judgment states : "The Additional Charge reads : "On 26-6-1961 at Chhindwara from the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhindwara, you have written a letter in your own handwriting and signature with a draft news item or irregularities in the Amarwara Block for public to Shri Sharma which was later on published in Hindi News Paper 'Kisan Raj' dated 2nd July 1961. Thus you have acted in contravention of rule 8 (2) 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1959." The petitioner disputed that the original letter dated 26th June 1961, which was belatedly shown to him, was in his handwriting and requested the Enquiry Officer to permit him to engage a lawyer to cross-examine the Hand writing Expert, G.T. Sarwate, as provided in General Book Circular 1-13 (15). Admittedly, the petitioner was not permitted to engage a lawyer for that purpose. It is however, explained that, since a lawyer had not been engaged for the State, the matter was in the discretion of the Enquiry Officer and he exercised it properly because the petitioner himself was able to competently cross-examine the expert. It is true that a public servant has no absolute right to be represented by a lawyer in a departmental enquiry on charges levelled against himself but as pointed out by the Calcutta High Court in Nirpendra Nath Bagchi v. Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal (1), the denial of the assistance of a lawyer may in certain circumstances amount in denial of a reasonable opportunity within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In our opinion the petitioner should have been allowed to be assisted by a lawyer for purpose of cross-examining the Handwriting Expert. Even so, we do not consider that, in the circumstances of this case, the refusal of the request for the assistance of a lawyer amounts to a denial of a reasonable opportunity under Article 311 (2)". 1. Even in the above judgment, the Court came to the conclusion that denial of the assistance of a lawyer in such a case also will not amount to a denial of the reasonable opportunity under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. We are completely in agreement with what is stated in the above ruling. Petition dismissed.