Daud S.M., J.:—This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the refusal of respondent 3 to permit unto the petitioners the assistance of Legal Practitioners of their choice in the conduct of their defence in the enquiry scheduled before him. 2. Petitioners were allegedly on a patrol on the night between 26 and 27 October, 1983. At about 22.00 hours on the Chembur-Trombay Highway, they intercepted a motor vehicle bearing Registration No. MTL 1849. At the driver's seat was one Laxman Datta Jadhav and the other occupants were a Cleaner, Laxman Deokar, his wife Nirmala and a child. The car alongwith its occupants was taken to the office of the D.C.B. C.I.D., Zone V at Ghatkopar. Driver Jadhav and the Cleaner were detained at the office. Nirmala and the child with here were taken to their residence at Parel, Bombay by the petitioners, who forced the lady to open her house. Petitioners broke open a wooden cupboard and removed all the cash they could lay their hands upon. Next, they visited a refinery shop owned by Laxman Deokar's brother Baburao and from that shop removed about Rs. 15,000/- without drawing of a panchanama showing an attachment thereof. The leader of the posse, petitioner 1, demanded a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as illegal gratification from Babuarao Deokar. The besieged family together with their servants were detained till about 7 a.m. on 27 October, 1983. Baburao Deokar lodged a complaint with the then Chief Minister of State Government and thereupon began an enquiry conducted by various officers including an Assistant Commissioner of Police and an Additional Commissioner of Police. Petitioners were suspended on 10 January, 1984 and the said suspension came to be revoked on November 14, 1984. A charge-sheet was served upon them ascribing to them acts of misconducts amounting to offences punishable under sections 342, 347, 348, 395, 217, 116, 161 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge-sheet was accompanied by a statement of allegations and respondent 3 was assigned the task of conducting the departmental enquiry. By two applications which are at Exhs. D E - being accompaniments to the petition compilation - the petitioners sought the permission of the Enquiry Officer to permit Legal Practitioners of their choice to represent them before him. The charge-sheet was accompanied by a statement of allegations and respondent 3 was assigned the task of conducting the departmental enquiry. By two applications which are at Exhs. D E - being accompaniments to the petition compilation - the petitioners sought the permission of the Enquiry Officer to permit Legal Practitioners of their choice to represent them before him. The applications recited— “…the charges levelled are of very serious nature and the entire matter is of very complicated nature. Moreover the list of witnesses includes high Police Officials…………………… For the people of subordinate rank it is highly embarrassing to put up questions to such persons and elicit proper answers. Thus our defence would be highly jeopardised and we will be losing an opportunity to defend ourselves properly.” Respondent 3 rejected the applications for the reason.— “Participation of non-officials except as a witness is not desirable in the Departmental Enquiry. However you will be given every opportunity to ask any questions relating to your case to your higher authority.” The reply further informed the petitioners that the witnesses would be examined on the 5th and 6th of June, 1986. The rejection aforementioned led to this petition. 3. Petitioners contend that Rule 454 of the Bombay Police Manual which prohibited appearance of Pleaders at the departmental enquiry had been relaxed by another Circular issued on 21 October, 1961. This Circular made it clear that the bar against allowing Legal Practitioners was not absolute. Whether such practitioners should or should not be permitted rested upon the discretion of the Enquiry Officer and this discretion had to be exercised judiciously. Having regard to the grounds cited in the applications moved by the petitioners, the Enquiry Officer should have permitted them to employ Advocates to represent their cause before him. The Enquiry Officer in his return tried to justify his action by referring to Rule 24. He contends that he had exercised his discretion properly, in that the petitioners were informed of their right to put all such questions as they considered proper to witnesses who would be testifying against them. Petitioners were in the Police Force and had put in a considerable number of years in service. It was not reasonable for them to urge that they would be handicapped unless a Lawyer was allowed to defend them. 4. The rigour of Rule 24 has been considerably relaxed by the Circular of 1961. Petitioners were in the Police Force and had put in a considerable number of years in service. It was not reasonable for them to urge that they would be handicapped unless a Lawyer was allowed to defend them. 4. The rigour of Rule 24 has been considerably relaxed by the Circular of 1961. Even in that rule there was no unqualified bar against a delinquent being represented in a departmental enquiry by a Lawyer. All that the rule said was that it was not “permissible for pleaders” to appear on behalf of Police Officers in a departmental enquiry. Impermissibility may be directory or mandatory in nature. Here the Rule itself makes it clear that the Lawyer can be engaged for drafting a written statement in answer to a charge-sheet served upon a delinquent. Next, appearance of a friend to defend the delinquent is permitted and the object of this, according to the rule itself is “to minimize any hardship”. Of course, the permission to employ a friend is also dependent upon the discretion of the Officer conducting the enquiry. This however does not mean that the Enquiry Officer can act in any manner he likes. The requirement of Rule is that he acts in consonance with the principles of fairness and natural justice. Provided the delinquent is not likely to be able to represent his case properly, the Enquiry Officer has to permit the employment of a friend to defend the delinquent. The note to the rule carries a caution against permitting the delinquent to employ trouble-makers as friends. It appears that the caution is against permitting the use of such persons whose real object is not to defend the delinquent but to cause vexatious delay in the carrying out of the enquiry. Considered as a whole, the rule directs the Enquiry Officer to act reasonably. He is enjoined to see that no unreasonable impediment arises in the expeditious disposal of the enquiry. At the same time, the delinquent has to be given a fair opportunity so that he is not hindered in meeting the case initiated against him. The Rule was misunderstood and that necessitated the issue of 1961 Circular. This made it clear that there was no “absolute prohibition” against allowing Legal Practitioners on either side. In other words, Legal Practitioners could represent the accusatory agency as also the delinquent. The Rule was misunderstood and that necessitated the issue of 1961 Circular. This made it clear that there was no “absolute prohibition” against allowing Legal Practitioners on either side. In other words, Legal Practitioners could represent the accusatory agency as also the delinquent. The delinquent had to have an adequate opportunity to defend himself. If the case was complicated or difficult or the person facing the charge was likely to be embarrassed, he was to be permitted legal aid. It is in this light that the claim of the petitioners for engaging Legal Practitioners of their choice to defend them in the enquiry, has to be appraised. 5. The accusations levelled against them are of a serious nature. Even if the most trifling of the accusations is established, the petitioners will be dismissed from service. The high Police Officers to be examined, will not be testifying merely to the steps they took to enquire into the matter. The statement of allegations indicates that the petitioners, or, at least some of them, had given confessions to the Assistant Commissioner of Police Gupte and Additional Commissioner of Police Venkatachalam. Confessions, it is well known-unless inadmissible or shattered - virtually clinch the case against a delinquent. It was argued that the delinquents include an Inspector and Sub-Inspectors. Officers of this rank cannot be said to become tongue-tied when facing senior Officers testifying against them. I cannot agree, for whatever the rank of petitioners 1 to 3 they have to face an Assistant and Additional Commissioners of Police who are much higher in rank as compared to them. Subordination brings about some subservience in the attitude and this is at its worst when there be a person-to-person confrontation. In any case, the cross-examination of witnesses like Laxman Deokar, Baburao Deokar and Nirmala Deokar is not going to be and easy matter. Baburao Deokar for one, after making a complaint to the Chief Minister, tried to water down the whole thing because of alleged entreaties made by some of the delinquents in person or through colleagues, who were supposedly from the same or neighbouring district as the one to which he belongs, viz. Sangli. Baburao Deokar for one, after making a complaint to the Chief Minister, tried to water down the whole thing because of alleged entreaties made by some of the delinquents in person or through colleagues, who were supposedly from the same or neighbouring district as the one to which he belongs, viz. Sangli. Therefore, the seriousness of the accusation levelled against the petitioners, the status of the witnesses testifying in the enquiry and the grave consequence in case even the most trifling charge is established against them, render it necessary that they be accorded the permission they were seeking. To use the words of the 1961 Circular, it was a denial of an “adequate opportunity of defending themselves” to refuse their applications. The case was, to use again the words of the 1961 Circular, “complicated, difficult and one likely to embarrass the delinquents in the absence of legal aid”. The third respondent had acted injudiciously in holding that mere undesirability of participation by non-officials, sufficed it to deny the very reasonable request made by the petitioners. The petition is allowed and the impugned reply dated 8 May, 1986, quashed. Respondent 3 is directed to allow the applications and only thereafter resume the stayed enquiry against the petitioners. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.