JUDGMENT S.J. Hyder, J. - This is plaintiffs second appeal. He filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises, for a declaration that the order of removal from service passed by the Divisional Medical Officer, Allahabad on 29-3-1967 and also the order passed in appeal by the Divisional Superintendent on July 4, 1967 may be declared void, illegal and inoperative. 2. It is not disputed between the parties that the plaintiff, appellant was appointed as a scavenger (Safai-wala) in the Northern Railway Hospital at Allahabad on 25-11-1950 and that he became a permanent employee of the railway, acquiring a substantive right to the post. It is also not disputed that on March 14, 1966 some incident took place between the plaintiff appellant on the one hand and Dr. V. S. Srivastava attached to the Northern Railway Hospital at Allahabad on the other and in that connection a memorandum was given to the appellant on 13-5-66 charging him with misconduct. The details of the misconduct alleged against the plaintiff appellant are not material for the disposal of this second appeal and therefore, need not be mentioned. 3. The plaintiff appellant alleged that he submitted his explanation on May 20, 1966 and that he nominated one Sri O. P. Dube Signal Inspector, Northern Railway Mirzapur to represent him, at the enquiry in accordance with R. 1712 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Volume I., but he was not given the assistance of Sri O. P. Dube on one pretext or the other. He further alleged that he applied for inspection of the documents on 30-7-1966 and repeated the said request by means of letters dated 17-10-1966, 20-10-1966 and 24-10-1966 but he was not given any opportunity to inspect the said documents. The plaintiff appellant made certain other allegations in support of his plea that the orders passed against him by the Divisional Medical Officer and the Divisional Superintendent were vitiated and the said points have also been raised before me. However, for the sake of brevity it is not necessary to refer to those allegations. 4. The defendant respondent contested the suit. They stated in paras. Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of the written statement that there was no such person as Sri O. P. Dube working as Signal Inspector at Mirzapur. However, for the sake of brevity it is not necessary to refer to those allegations. 4. The defendant respondent contested the suit. They stated in paras. Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of the written statement that there was no such person as Sri O. P. Dube working as Signal Inspector at Mirzapur. They alleged that the plaintiffs request for permission to appear through Sri O. P. Dube as his defence counsel was turned down on the ground that no such person was known to the Railway Administration. However, in para 46 of the written statement it was averred that on June 20, 1967 the plaintiff appellant again repeated his request before the Committee of Enquiry for permission to be represented through Sri O. P, Dube as his defence counsel, but that request was turned down on the ground that Sri O. P. Dube was not eligible to act as such. In para 53 of the written statement it was averred that in the charge-sheet dated May 10, 1966 it was made clear to the plaintiff appellant that he could inspect the document within a period of seven days from the service of the charge sheet and he shall not be permitted to do so thereafter. It was admitted that the plaintiff appellant made request for the inspection of the relevant documents by his letters dated 30-7-1966, 17-10-1966, 20-10-1966 and 24-10-1966 and it was pleaded that the said request was rightly turned down on the ground that they were made beyond one week of the period mentioned in the charge sheet dated 10-5-1966. The other allegations made in the plaint were also traversed by the defendant respondent but as stated earlier it is not necessary to refer to them in as much as this second appeal can be disposed of on the two questions in respect of which the pleadings of the parties have been noticed above. 5. It is evident from the written statement filed by the defendant respondent and also by the documents filed by the parties in this case, that the initial stand taken by the defendant respondent that there was no person having name Sri O. P. Dube, who was posted as Signal Inspector at Mirzapur, were hypertechnical and not fair. 5. It is evident from the written statement filed by the defendant respondent and also by the documents filed by the parties in this case, that the initial stand taken by the defendant respondent that there was no person having name Sri O. P. Dube, who was posted as Signal Inspector at Mirzapur, were hypertechnical and not fair. The subsequent averment made in the written statement by the defendant that Sri O. P. Dube was ineligible to act as a defence counsel for the plaintiff appellant, clearly goes to show that there was a person having the name Sri O. P. Dube who was employed in the Administration of the Northern Railway. The plaintiff appellant had given Mirzapur address of Sri O. P. Dube, May be that after plaintiffs notice appointing Sri O. P. Dube as his counsel or immediately before that the latter may have been transferred from Mirzapur to some other place and therefore, only a guarded communication was sent to the plaintiff appellant stating that no person having the name Sri O. P, Dube was posted as Signal Inspector at Mirzapur. No one has appeared on behalf of the defendant respondent before the trial court to state that Sri O. P. Dube was a fictitious person and that no person having the name Sri O. P. Dube was holding the post of Signal Inspector in the Northern railway. The inconsistent case taken up by the defendant respondent in para No. 46 that Sri O. P. Dube was ineligible to represent the plaintiff appellant as his counsel at the enquiry is equally untenable. No grounds have been disclosed either in the said para or in the documents filed in this case to show how Sri O. P. Dube lacked the necessary qualification to represent the plaintiff appellant at the departmental enquiry. In this connection R. 1712 (2) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code is relevant and is reproduced below:- "(2) The Disciplinary Authority may, where considered necessary, nominate any Railway/Government servant to present the case in support of the charges before the authority inquiring into the charges (hereinafter referred to as the Inquiring Authority). The accused railway servant may present his case with the assistance of any other railway servant (including a railway servant on leave preparatory to retirement) employed on the same Railway Administration on which he is working. The accused railway servant may present his case with the assistance of any other railway servant (including a railway servant on leave preparatory to retirement) employed on the same Railway Administration on which he is working. If the accused employee is employed in the office of the Railway Board, its attached office or subordinate office, he may present his case with the assistance of any other employee (including an employee on leave preparatory to retirement) employed in the office of the Railway Board, attached office or subordinate office, as the case may be, in which he is working. Note:- In the case of a non-gazetted railway servant, he may have the assistance of an official of a Railway Trade Union recognised by the Raiway Administration on which the accused railway servant is employed, but shall not engage a professional lawyer. The term `professional lawer includes those who are competent to practice in a court of law. A Trade Union Official shall not be allowed to appear in a disciplinary case before an officer or a Committee of Inquiry unless he has worked as such in a recognised Railway Trade Union for a period of at least one year continuously before he appears and subject to the condition that he takes no fees. Note 2:- Nominating of an Assisting railway servant/Railway Trade Union official shall not be accepted if at the time of nomination the Assisting railway servant/Railway Trade Union Official has more than two pending disciplinary cases in which he is to assist." 6. In order to entitle the person to represent a railway employee at a departmental enquiry, all that is necessary is that he should either be employed in the same Railway Administration or may be a Trade Union Worker for a period of not less than one year from the date of the enquiry. There is, however, a proviso contained in the said rule which lays down that no person can represent a railway employee at a departmental enquiry if he is already doing so in two pending cases from before. There is, however, a proviso contained in the said rule which lays down that no person can represent a railway employee at a departmental enquiry if he is already doing so in two pending cases from before. The defendant respondent has neither alleged nor proved that Sri O. P. Dube was appearing as a defence counsel in two cases prior to his nomination by the plaintiff appellant and as such it cannot be held that the ground refusing the permission to Sri O. P. Dube to appear as defence counsel for the plaintiff appellant was justified. The learned counsel for the defendant respondent has argued that along with the nomination of Sri O. P. Dube the plaintiff appellant did not file a certificate from Sri O. P. Dube himself stating that he was not appearing at two departmental enquiries from before. This submission made on behalf of the defendant respondent cannot be accepted. No rule has been cited before me in support of this proposition. 7. It has been next argued on behalf of the defendant respondent that the plaintiff appellant should have submitted a list of pannel of three names to represent him as his defence counsel and as he insisted only on being represented only by Sri O. P. Dube the Administrating was justified in not accepting his request. I have quoted the relevant portion of R. 1712 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and I do not find that it contains any direction requiring a person charged for having committed delinquency as a railway employee to submit a pannel of three names. This submission of the learned counsel for the defendant respondent also fails. 8. It is admitted by the defendant respondent that the plaintiff appellant made repeated requests for inspection of documents. As already indicated above they have justified the refusal to accede to the request of the plaintiff appellant on the ground that the said request was not made within a week of the service of the charge-sheet dated 10-5-1966 Ext. A 4. The relevant rule containing the provision for permission to inspect the official records is R. 1711 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. It lays down that the permission to inspect the official records can be refused on two grounds to be recorded in writing. A 4. The relevant rule containing the provision for permission to inspect the official records is R. 1711 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. It lays down that the permission to inspect the official records can be refused on two grounds to be recorded in writing. The first ground on which such a request may be rejected is that in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority such records are not relevant for the purpose. The second ground is that it would be against public interest to allow access to official records to inspect which an application is made. There is no other ground on which a request for permission to inspect official records on be refused. It is true that in the charge-sheet Ext. A-4 it was specifically mentioned that the plaintiff appellant could inspect the records within one week of the service thereof. This direction could not possibly override' the specific provision of law contained in R. 1711 (1) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The direction of the nature contained in Ext. A-4 are usually inserted in terrorism in order to secure speedy disposal of disciplinary proceedings. Such directions do not have and cannot be construed as having the force of law. It is not the case of the defendant respondent that the records which were sought to be inspected by the plaintiff appellant were not relevant for the purpose at the enquiry. It is also not their case that it would not have been in public interest to permit the appellant to have access to the said records. In the case reported in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623 it has been held that if documents which a servant charged, desires to inspect, are not made available to him, he is denied an opportunity of receiving valuable assistance from them either as substantive evidence or as material for cross examination of the witness who deposed against him at the enquiry. It was further held that refusal to accede to such a request is violative of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. 9. It is thus evident that the plaintiff appellant who is a mere scavenger (Safaiwala) working in the Northern Railway Hospital at Allahabad has been denied an opportunity of representation through a defence counsel of his own choice. It was further held that refusal to accede to such a request is violative of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. 9. It is thus evident that the plaintiff appellant who is a mere scavenger (Safaiwala) working in the Northern Railway Hospital at Allahabad has been denied an opportunity of representation through a defence counsel of his own choice. He has also been refused permission to see the documents which he desired to be inspected. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that the provision contained in Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution have been violated and the order of his removal dated 29-3L1967 passed by the Divisional Medical Officer, Allahabad and the order dated 4-7-1967 passed by the Divisional Superintendent, Allahabad in appeal are illegal and cannot be sustained. 10. The result is that this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The decrees of the two courts below are set aside. The suit of the plaintiff appellant is decreed. It is hereby declared that the order of the Divisional Medical Officer dated 29-3-1967 and the order of the Divisional Superintendent passed in appeal dated 4-7-1967 are void, illegal and inoperative. It is further declared that the plaintiff shall be deemed to continue in service throughout. The plaintiff appellant is entitled to his costs of all the courts.