JUDGMENT - DHARMADHIKARI S.C., J.:—Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2.Petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings. He has approached this Court during the course of disciplinary proceedings, questioning the correctness of an order by which his request for furnishing documents, has been rejected by the Enquiry Officer. Apart from this, petitioner questions appointment of a Retired Judicial Officer as an Enquiry Officer, on the ground that he is not a public servant. 3.It is the case of the petitioner that he has been served with a charge-sheet on 28th March, 2003. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that while in service, he has not submitted bills and related release orders, telecast certificates etc. of T.V. marketing department in respect of orders specified in the charge-sheet and on account of this lapse the accounts of respondent Corporation for the year ended 31st March, 2002 could not be audited by statutory auditors so also Balance sheet and Profit and Loss account also could not be placed before the Annual General Meeting. The other charge pertains to the failure and neglect on the part of the petitioner to comply with the memos issued to him and these are alleged as acts of insubordination. The charge sheet is very lengthy and contains about 16 paragraphs. 4.It is the case of the petitioner that upon receipt of charge-sheet, by letter dated 4th July, 2003, addressed to respondent No. 4, petitioner requested for furnishing relevant documents referred to in the charge-sheet. It is his case that the Managing Director did not comply with the request. Thereafter, petitioner received a communication informing him about the enquiry and pursuant to the directions of the Enquiry Officer (respondent No. 2), respondent No. 1 furnished copies of certain documents. However, some of the documents sought were not furnished to him. It is his case that he filed a reply to the charge-sheet and sought liberty to file detailed reply after obtaining certain documents to which he did not have access. He submits that by letter dated 26th May, 2003, he once again reiterated that the documents required by him are relevant and be furnished to him. Pursuant to this request, petitioner was given copies of certain other documents but a complete list of relevent documents was not furnished. He submits that by letter dated 26th May, 2003, he once again reiterated that the documents required by him are relevant and be furnished to him. Pursuant to this request, petitioner was given copies of certain other documents but a complete list of relevent documents was not furnished. It appears that the charge was amended and, thereafter, once again the petitioner made a request to furnish him documents but respondent No. 2 did not comply with this request. The enquiry has proceeded and during the course of the enquiry, respondent No. 1 submitted its compilation of documents. Petitioner was unable to submit his compilation because his request for remaining documents to be supplied to him was not considered. He reiterated the said request after Presenting Officer submitted a fresh compilation of documents and copies thereof were furnished to him. However, by the impugned order, respondent No. 2 has turned down request by observing that there is no question of direction respondent No. 1 to produce documents on which they are not relying and it is sufficient that the management is directed to supply documents upon which they placed reliance. By impugned orders dated 28th June, 2003 and 1st November, 2003, the request having been rejected, petitioner has approached this Court. 5.Mr. C.U. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner raised two fold contentions. His first submission is that the National Film Development Corporation Ltd. (N.F.D.C.) Service Rules provide that enquiry for imposing major penalty for misconduct of a employee could be initiated but the Enquiry Officer, necessarily, has to be a public servant. He relied upon Rule 23(b) and (d). His second submission is that the enquiry authority was obliged to follow the Rules pertaining to furnishing and supplying all documents. In his submission, Rule 23(b) obliges the enquiry authority to grant inspection of documents listed with the charge-sheet, submit list of additional documents and witnesses that he wants to examine and supply copies thereof with the charge- sheet. Relying upon note below Rule 23(b) it is submitted that relevancy of additional documents and witnesses referred to in Sub-clause (b-2) will have to be given by employee concerned and the documents and the witnesses shall be summoned if the enquiry authority is satisfied about their relevance to the charges under enquiry. Relying upon note below Rule 23(b) it is submitted that relevancy of additional documents and witnesses referred to in Sub-clause (b-2) will have to be given by employee concerned and the documents and the witnesses shall be summoned if the enquiry authority is satisfied about their relevance to the charges under enquiry. In his submission, this aspect of the matter has to be decided by the enquiring authority before it proceeds with the enquiry proceedings. It is not permissible for the enquiring authority to hold that the issue of supply of documents and their relevancy can be considered later. The enquiry must necessarily proceed with all the relevant documents. Mr. Singh submitted that enquiring authority has misconstrued and misinterpreted the Rules. The enquiring authority has failed to appreciate that subject to the relevancy, it is obliged to direct the management to supply to the delinquent like petitioner, even such documents which are in the custody and possession of the management, but which are necessary for establishing the innocence of the delinquent or to otherwise support his defence. In his submission, the documents sought by him are relevant for the purpose of establishing and proving petitioners innocence and hence this Court should interfere with the impugned order and direct the enquiring authority to proceed in accordance with the Rules. 6.On the other hand, Shri Presswalla, learned Counsel appearing for respondents contended before us that appointment of respondent No. 2 as Enquiry Officer is in accordance with the Rules. He relies upon a communication received from the Central Vigilance Commission. He relies upon the rules and more particularly Rule 7 and submits that the appointment of respondent No. 2 was in accordance with the same. He further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court during the course of enquiry proceedings with the sole intention of delaying the same on some pretext or the other. He submits that all relevant documents which were in the custody and possession of respondents have been supplied already to petitioner. He submits that respondent No. 2 was right in rejecting the request of the petitioner because although management is relying upon some documents, if they are unable to produce the same, then there is no question of management being permitted to refer to and rely upon the same. He submits that respondent No. 2 was right in rejecting the request of the petitioner because although management is relying upon some documents, if they are unable to produce the same, then there is no question of management being permitted to refer to and rely upon the same. He submits that the matter is amply clarified because respondents have already stated before the Enquiry Officer that they do not wish to rely upon documents because of their unavailability. Once the management does not rely upon documents then, there is no question of petitioner being supplied with the same. He points out that as and when petitioner requires any documents or desires examination of any witness he should take appropriate steps in accordance with Rules. On all these grounds, he submits that it is not necessary to interfere with the order passed by the Enquiry Officer at this stage and the petition be dismissed. 7.In support of his submissions, Mr. Singh relies upon a decision of Division Bench of Orissa High Court in the case of (Siba Kishore Pattanaik v. Chief Engineer, Paradip Port Trust another)1, reported in 1993(1) C.L.R. 18, as well as decisions of Supreme Court in the case of (Committee of Management Kisan Degree College v. Shambhu Saran Pandey others)2, reported in 1995(1) S.C.C. 404 , and in the case of (Deepak Puri v. State of Haryana others)3, reported in 2000(10) S.C.C. 373 . On the other hand Mr. Presswalla relies upon judgment of Division Bench of Patna High Court in the case of (Srikant Upadhya another v. Union of India other)4 , reported in A.I.R. 1963 Pat. 38. He also invites our attention to the instructions issued by Central Vigilance Commission dated 25th March, 2003 permitting utilisation of services of outsiders including retired officers for conducting departmental enquiries. 8.For properly appreciating rival contentions, in our view, it is necessary to refer to the Rules. Rule 7 of the Rules provides that interpretation of the same shall not be repugnant to provisions of Companies Act, Articles of Association of Corporation and other various Acts, Rules, notifications, modifications issued by Government and other statutory authorities from time to time. 8.For properly appreciating rival contentions, in our view, it is necessary to refer to the Rules. Rule 7 of the Rules provides that interpretation of the same shall not be repugnant to provisions of Companies Act, Articles of Association of Corporation and other various Acts, Rules, notifications, modifications issued by Government and other statutory authorities from time to time. Rule 9 states that in respect of matters concerning conditions of service not covered by the Rules or specified decision of the Board, Rules and procedures set forth in the Government of Indias fundamental Rules and service Rules including the orders and decisions of Government of India under audit instructions will be considered as guiding principles for deciding any individual case arising in the corporation. These Rules read with the instructions issued by Central Government Vigilance Commission make it abundantly clear that Disciplinary Authority can either hold enquiry itself or can appoint any public servant to be the enquiring authority. The word "public Servant appearing in Rule 22(b) and (d) will have to be construed in the light of Rules 7 and 9 referred to above. The same will have to be construed together with instructions issued by C.V.C. so construed, it is abundantly clear that a public servant contemplated therein would also include a person holding at one time a post of public servant. The term public servant is not defined in the Rules. The term will have to be understood in its ordinary sense. The regulation in question pertains to power to hold departmental enquiry. The power is conferred in the disciplinary authority to enquire into the truth of any allegation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an employee. The power is conferred with a discretion in the disciplinary authority to either hold the enquiry itself or appoint any public servant to enquire into the truth thereof. A construction of this provision should be such as would advance the object of incorporating the same. A hyper technical or strict view would make it impossible for respondents to appoint a person not in public office earlier. Such a intention cannot be attributed to the Rule-makers. Ultimately, appointment of independent person is contemplated by them. So understood, it is clear that a retired Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai would be included in its purview. The challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Enquiry Officer must, therefore, fail. Such a intention cannot be attributed to the Rule-makers. Ultimately, appointment of independent person is contemplated by them. So understood, it is clear that a retired Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai would be included in its purview. The challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Enquiry Officer must, therefore, fail. 9.In so far as the request of petitioner to furnish him with documents which have been sought for vide letters addressed from time to time, in our view, the said request has not been considered by respondent No. 2 in the light of the Rules. In the light of the clear wording of the Rules and more particularly Rule 23(b), it was necessary for the Enquiry Officer to examine the request for supply of documents as made by the petitioner. This aspect could not have been decided by merely observing that if respondent No. 1 does not produce any relevant documents, it will be at their risk. Nor is the request of petitioner capable of being rejected by observing that at this stage when the management is not relying upon any documents, then, there is no question of directing their production. The Enquiry Officer was considering the request of petitioner to supply him with documents which will enable him to prepare his defence. More so, where one of the charge has been amended and petitioner is desirous of filing a further detailed written statement. The Enquiry Officer ought to have considered the request of petitioner for supply of documents as it is contended by him that he is handicapped and would not be in a position to defend himself and answer the charges. It is not as if the whole enquiry can be concluded on the basis of documents which are produced by the management alone. The documents which are referred to and relied upon by the delinquent employee viz., the petitioner, should also be directed to be produced, if the same are in the custody of the management and not in custody and possession of petitioner. Of course, the aspect of relevancy of such documents to the charges and the enquiry has also to be considered while examining the request of petitioner. These matters cannot be take up once the examination of witnesses and other steps commence. Of course, the aspect of relevancy of such documents to the charges and the enquiry has also to be considered while examining the request of petitioner. These matters cannot be take up once the examination of witnesses and other steps commence. It is clear that after the proceedings reach a stage contemplated by Rule 23(k), then what remains is examination and cross-examination of witnesses of the management and delinquent and written arguments. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer ought to have gone into the request or petitioner to supply him with documents which are necessary and relevant for the purpose of his defence at the enquiry and could not have rejected such a request by looking into the documents which are produced by the management. This request was independent of the managements decision to produce documents which are being referred to or relied upon by it during the enquiry proceedings. 10.In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Management, Kisan Degree College, (supra) the plea of petitioner to supply him with documents which are necessary for him to prepare his defence at the enquiry should have been considered before further steps are taken by enquiry authority. We are, therefore, of the view that the order passed by the enquiring authority insofar as the request of petitioner to supply him with documents which are relevant for the purpose of enquiry deserves to be quashed and set aside. 11.We direct the enquiring authority to examine the request of petitioner for supply of documents which are enlisted in his letter dated 1st November, 2003 in accordance with Rules and pass appropriate orders/directions thereon. Needless to state that the petitioner will have to establish the relevancy of the documents to the charges under enquiry and only if he satisfies the enquiring authority about the same, that appropriate orders/directions can be issued to management for production of such documents. 12.In view of what is stated hereinabove, we hold that appointment of respondent No. 2 as enquiring authority is neither illegal nor invalid and he is competent to conduct enquiry proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to charge-sheet issued by respondent No. 1. 12.In view of what is stated hereinabove, we hold that appointment of respondent No. 2 as enquiring authority is neither illegal nor invalid and he is competent to conduct enquiry proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to charge-sheet issued by respondent No. 1. However, we quash and set aside the order or respondent No. 2 to the extent indicated above and remit the matter back to the enquiring authority with a direction to examine the request of petitioner for supply of documents as made vide application/letter dated 1st November, 2003 and pass appropriate orders/directions in accordance with Rules. 13.Petition is partly allowed with no orders as to costs. -----