Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 557 (GAU)

Amiya Kumar Das v. Food Corporation of India

2005-08-05

BROJENDRA PRASAD KATAKEY

body2005
JUDGMENT B.P. Katakey, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as Asstt. Manager (General), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office at Guwahati, has challenged the communication dated 24.1.2003 issued by the Joint Manager (V & S), Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (NE) refusing to allow the Sri Jatindra Nath Bora, a co-employee of the petitioner, to act as defence assistant in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and also for stay of the further proceeding of the departmental proceeding initiated vide memorandum dated 29.8.2002 issued by the Zonal Manager (NE), Food Corporation of India, on the ground that on the same facts the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is pending. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that a first information report was lodged by the Superintendent of Police, CBI in Crime No. RC 3(A)/99-SHG dated 8.1.1999 alleging entering into criminal conspiracy by one Sri S.P. Singh while posted and functioning as District Manager, FCI, Tezpur, during 1994-96, with some unknown private persons and issuance of release orders with fake allotment orders and also without verifying the genuineness of the authority letters as well as the additional allotment orders for paramilitary force. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation of the Anti-corruption Branch, Guwahati upon completion of the investigation submitted the charge sheet No. 11 dated 18.2.2002 in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Guwahati, alleging commission of offence under Sections*120B/420/463/468/471 IPC and under Section 13(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the said charge sheet, the writ petitioner was also charge sheeted. The disciplinary authority, namely, Zonal Manager (NE) thereafter vide memorandum dated 29.8.2003 has drawn up a disciplinary proceeding under the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Regulation), asking the petitioner to show cause why the disciplinary action shall not be taken against him, enclosing therewith, the two articles of charges, statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses. The petitioner on receipt of the said show cause notice submitted an application on 25.9.2002, before the disciplinary authority, praying for stay of the departmental proceeding till the special case No. 8(c)/2002 is decided by the learned Special Judge, on the ground that both the criminal and the departmental proceeding are based on the identical and same set of facts and if the departmental proceeding is allowed to be continued serious miscarriage of justice, double jeopardy and prejudice would be caused to him. The disciplinary authority thereafter without passing any order on the said application appointed the enquiry officer, to conduct the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and informed the petitioner about the date and place for holding the departmental proceeding. The petitioner thereafter on 9.1.2003 requested the enquiry officer to allow Sri Jatindra Nath Bora, Assistant Manager, FCI, Assam region to act as defence assistant in the said enquiry. A consent latter of the said officer, namely, Jatindra Nath Bora, was also sent on 18.1.2003. The Joint Manager (V & S) vide communication dated 24.1.2003 refused to allow Sri Jatindra Nath Bora as defence assistant on the ground that he is at present, not under the administrative control of Assam region. The enquiry officer thereafter on 14.2.2003 issued notices to the witnesses intimating them to be present on 5.3.2003 for giving evidence in the departmental proceeding against the present petitioner and another. At this stage the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief. This court while issuing notice of motion, vide order dated 28.2.2003, directed that the departmental proceeding shall not be proceeded till interim matter is finally heard and disposed of and said interim order is still continuing. 3. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Senapati and Mr. P.K. Kalita, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, FCI. 4. Mr. 3. I have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Senapati and Mr. P.K. Kalita, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, FCI. 4. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the criminal proceeding as well as the departmental proceeding, initiated against the petitioner by issuing the memorandum dated 29.8.2002, are based on the identical facts if the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is allowed to be continued, the petitioner has to submit the written statement in the said departmental proceeding, which will amount to disclosing his defence, that may be taken by him in the criminal proceeding and as such grave prejudice would be caused, if the departmental proceeding is not stayed till the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is disposed of. According to the learned senior counsel the basis for initiation of the criminal proceeding and the departmental proceeding are substantially the same and hence it is desirable that the departmental proceeding should not be allowed to proceed till the criminal proceeding is over. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that the criminal proceeding is at the stage of consideration of framing of charge. Challenging the communication dated 24.1.2003 issued by the Joint Manager (V & S), Mr. Sahewalla has submitted that as the employee concerned has the right to chose a co-employee as defence assistant to assist in the departmental proceeding, under the regulation, the authority cannot reject the prayer for allowing Sri Jatindra Nath Bora to act as defence assistant in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, on the ground that he is at present not under the administrative control of Assam region. According to the learned Counsel, the right of the writ petitioner to take defence assistance of his choice conferred by Regulation 58(8) of the 1971 Regulation, has been violated by the impugned communication dated 24.1.2003, as it amounts to depriving the petitioner from taking the defence assistant of his choice. According to the learned Counsel, the right of the writ petitioner to take defence assistance of his choice conferred by Regulation 58(8) of the 1971 Regulation, has been violated by the impugned communication dated 24.1.2003, as it amounts to depriving the petitioner from taking the defence assistant of his choice. It has further been submitted by the senior counsel for the petitioner that the management in fact appointed the enquiry officer and summoned the witnesses to be examined in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding without disposing of his application dated 25.9.2002, whereby he prayed for stay of departmental proceeding on the ground of pendency of the criminal proceeding on the identical facts. The alternative argument, therefore, is that the petitioner is at least entitle to file a written statement in defence and to take defence assistant of his choice. Mr. Sahewalla, in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors. reported in (1988) II LLJ 470 SC, P.J. Sunderrajan and Anr. v. Unit Trust of India and Anr. reported in 1993 (3) SLR 21 and in State Bank of India and Ors. v. R. B. Sharma, reported in (2004) III LLJ 528 SC. 5. Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned standing counsel for the Food Corporation of India, has submitted that there is no bar in continuation of the departmental proceeding even if the criminal proceeding is pending on the same facts. It has further been submitted that it is not an inflexible rule of law that in each and every case where criminal proceedings are pending, departmental proceeding has to be stayed till conclusion of the criminal proceeding. According to the learned Counsel, the criminal and departmental proceedings are held in their own distinct and mutual exclusive jurisdictional areas and the standard of proof in both the proceedings are different. In criminal proceeding the charges have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt and in a departmental proceeding it is preponderance of probabilities. The disciplinary proceeding deals with the discipline, integrity, misconduct of an employee and in a criminal proceeding criminal liability of an employee is seen. In criminal proceeding the charges have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt and in a departmental proceeding it is preponderance of probabilities. The disciplinary proceeding deals with the discipline, integrity, misconduct of an employee and in a criminal proceeding criminal liability of an employee is seen. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel that it is in the interest of the employee concerned that the departmental proceeding should be expedited, more so when the petitioner is going to retire on 1.9.2005 as otherwise he may not be entitled to the retired benefits. Mr. Kalita, the learned Counsel, has also submitted that two other employees who are involved in the criminal cases with the petitioner, have in fact, approached the Delhi High Court by filing the writ petition praying for stay of the departmental proceeding pending finalisation of the criminal proceeding but the said writ petitions have been dismissed. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the present writ petition also deserves dismissal. Mr. Kalita in support of his contention has placed reliance on Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999) I LLJ 1094 SC, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. T. Srinivas reported in AIR 2004 SCW 4558 and also a Single Bench decision of Delhi High court in Surendra Pal Singh @ S.P. Singh v. Managing Director, FCI registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 7894 of 2002. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings including annexure as appended thereto. 7. The Central Bureau of Investigation had conducted an investigation on the basis of the first information report dated 8.1.1999 submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation. Upon completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed on 18.2.2002 in the court of the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, which was registered as Special Case No. 8(c)/2002. The said criminal proceeding is pending at the stage of consideration of framing of charge, though the charge sheet was submitted way back in the month of February 2002. Upon completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed on 18.2.2002 in the court of the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, which was registered as Special Case No. 8(c)/2002. The said criminal proceeding is pending at the stage of consideration of framing of charge, though the charge sheet was submitted way back in the month of February 2002. The petitioner has also been named as accused in the said charge sheet and the allegations against him is dishonest acceptance of fictitious allotment order, fake authority letters of the non-existent CRPF unit, dishonestly according approval for processing false allotment orders submitted by the private patties along with fictitious authority letters of non-existent-CRPF unit dishonest attestation of the signature of the accused private person accepting them as authorised lifting agents of the fictitious CRPF Commanding Officer and thereby causing wrongful loss to the department to the tune of about forty lakhs. By memorandum dated 29.8.2002, issued by the Zonal Manager (NE), the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner on the following charges: ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO. 1 Shri Amiya Kumar Das while functioning as Asstt. Manager (Genl/Comml), FCI, District Office, Tezpur, Assam during the year 1993-96, especially between the period December 1993 to October 1996 connived with unknown accused private persons in as much as he accepted fictitious allotment orders purportedly issued from Commercial Section FCI, Regional Office, Guwahati and the Directorate of Food & Civil Supplies, Assam, Guwahati in favour of fake paramilitary units directly from the accused private persons in 16 instances without verifying the genuinity of the documents though the documents were submitted in photocopy/cyclostyle form and were the party's copies and were not to be processed as per established norms and procedures. ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO. 2 It is further alleged that Shri Amiya Kumar Das accorded approval for processing of false allotment orders bearing allotments in the name of fictitious paramilitary/CRPF units submitted by accused private parties alongwith fictitious authority letters of such non-existent paramilitary units for issue of release orders for lifting of Common rice from the depots under District Office, Tezpur in 2 instances without verifying their genuinity and in 25 instances attested the signatures of accused private persons accepting them as authorised lifting agents of the fictitious CRPF Commanding Officers. As a result of fake allotment orders accepted and Release Orders issued/attested by him 2440.766 MT of Common rice worth Rs. As a result of fake allotment orders accepted and Release Orders issued/attested by him 2440.766 MT of Common rice worth Rs. 1,31,55,728.74 @ Rs, 539.00 per quintal and 160 MT. of wheat worth Rs. 6,46,400.00 @ 404.00 per quintal were lifted by the unknown private accused persons thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs. 58,96,780.76 approximately in respect of Rice (Rs. 1,90,52,509.50, i.e., 1548.30 MT × Rs. 755.00 (market price of common Rice for 1995-96) + 892.477 MT × Rs. 825.00 (market price of Common Rice for 1996-97) - Rs. 1,31,55,728.74) and Rs. 49,600.00 in respect of wheat (Rs. 6,96,000.00, i.e., 160.00 MT × Rs. 435.00 (market price of wheat for 1996) - Rs. 6,46,400.00) and consequential gain to the accused persons. Shri Amiya Kumar Das as above thereby exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty in as much as he acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer of the Corporation and contravened the Regulations 31 and 32 read with Regulations 32(A), (1), (5), (9), (30) and (38) of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. 8. The petitioner has, therefore, been charged departmentally for lack of integrity and devotion of duty, as he has acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer of the Corporation, thereby contravening Regulations 31, 32 read with 32(A), (1), (5), (9), (30) and (38) of the 1971 Regulations, Though by the said show cause notice, the petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence within 10 days, the petitioner filed an application dated 25.9.2002 before the disciplinary authority praying for stay of the departmental proceeding in view of pendency of the criminal proceeding before the learned Special Judge in Special Case No. 8(c)/2002. No written statement however, was filed by the petitioner. It appears from the notice dated 20.12.2002 that the management appointed an enquiry officer who fixed the date and place of departmental enquiry against the petitioner and another Assistant Manager. The petitioner thereafter on 9.1.2003 requested the enquiry officer to allow him take assistance of one Sri Jatindra Nath Bora, Assistant Manager of FCI in the departmental proceeding. Said Sri Jatindra Nath Bora also vide, communication dated 18.1.2003 give his consent to act as defence assistant for the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter on 9.1.2003 requested the enquiry officer to allow him take assistance of one Sri Jatindra Nath Bora, Assistant Manager of FCI in the departmental proceeding. Said Sri Jatindra Nath Bora also vide, communication dated 18.1.2003 give his consent to act as defence assistant for the petitioner. The Joint Manager (V & S) vide communication dated 24.1.2003 refused to allow said Jatindra Nath Bora as defence assistant, to assist the petitioner in departmental proceeding on the ground that he is not under the administrative control of Assam regional office. By that communication it was also informed that the officer concerned, who willing to act his defence assistant have to seek permission from his controlling officer to act as such and to certify that he does not have more than two departmental proceedings including the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer on 14.2.2003 thereafter fixed the enquiry on 5.3.2003 and issued summons to the witnesses to be examined in the departmental proceeding conducted against the writ petitioner and another. At this stage the petitioner approached this court by way of the present writ petition and this court vide order dated 28.2.2003 while issuing notice of motion stayed further proceeding of the departmental proceeding initiated against him. 9. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the criminal proceeding as well as departmental proceeding are based on the identical facts, prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if the departmental proceeding is allowed to be continued, as in that case he has to file written statement in the defence in the said departmental proceeding disclosing his defence that might be taken by him in the criminal proceeding and, therefore, the departmental proceeding is to be stayed till the criminal proceeding is over. As observed above, the criminal proceeding is in the very initial stage. The charge is yet to be framed though the charge sheet was filed on 18.2.2002. On the other hand, the petitioner is going to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 1.9.2005 and, therefore, hardly there is a month from now. 10. The law relating to stay of the departmental proceeding during pendency of the criminal proceeding is by now more or less settled. On the other hand, the petitioner is going to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 1.9.2005 and, therefore, hardly there is a month from now. 10. The law relating to stay of the departmental proceeding during pendency of the criminal proceeding is by now more or less settled. The Apex Court in Kusheshwar Dubey (supra) has held that while there can be no legal bar for simultaneous proceeding being taken against the delinquent employee, against whom disciplinary proceeding were initiated, yet there may be cases where it would be appropriate to defer disciplinary proceeding awaiting disposal of the criminal case. It has further been held that it is neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, straightjacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation and each case is to be decided on the facts of the each case. 11. In P.J. Sunderrajan (supra) the Apex Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the said case stayed the departmental proceeding till the completion of the criminal trial as the cases arising out of same set of facts and circumstances. 12. In State Bank of India (supra), the Apex Court relying on Captain M. Paul Anthony (supra) has held that it is fairly well settled position in law that on basic principles, proceedings in criminal case and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously, except where departmental proceedings and criminal case are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. In paragraph 8 of the said decision the Apex Court has held as under: 8. The purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. Criminal prosecution is launched for an offence for violation of a duty the offender owes to the society, or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall made satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceeding are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceeding are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in criminal case against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial or a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offence generally implies infringement, of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under, criminal law. When trial for criminal offence is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offence as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). Converse is the case of departmental enquiry. The enquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer, to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental enquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defence at the trial in criminal case. It is always, a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. 13. The Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (supra), relying on the various earlier decisions, has summarised the circumstances under which, departmental proceeding can be stayed when the criminal proceeding is continuing. In paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 22. The conclusion which are deducible from various decisions of this court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted, simultaneously, though separately. In paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 22. The conclusion which are deducible from various decisions of this court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted, simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to say this departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case? (iii) Whether the nature of charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date so that if the employee, is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the, earliest. 14. The Delhi High Court in Surendra Paul Singh case (supra) I as dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, who has also been charge sheeted along with writ petitioner in the same criminal proceeding, refusing to stay the departmental proceeding. 15. In a recent case, the Apex Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) has held that the stay of the departmental proceeding cannot be and should not be a matter of course and before passing stay order, the court is required to take into consideration the seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner and the desirability of the continuing him in service in spite of such serious charges levelled against him. It has further been held that the approach and objective of the criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding is altogether distinct and different and there is no legal impediment in simultaneous proceeding in both the proceedings. 16. From the various decisions of the Apex Court is, therefore, evident that there is no legal impediment in simultaneous proceeding of both the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding, though both are based on identical and similar set of facts. It would be desirable to stay the departmental proceeding till the conclusion of the criminal case, if the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature, which involves the complicated question of law and facts and if both the proceedings are based on identical and similar set of facts. Complicated question of fact and law would depend upon the nature of cases lodged against the employee on the basis of the evidence and materials quoted against him. The Court before passing any order staying the departmental proceeding also to keep in mind that the departmental proceeding can not be unduly delayed because it is in the interest of the employee that the departmental proceeding should come to an end as early as possible. Even in cases where the departmental proceeding is stayed because of pendency of the criminal proceeding, the departmental proceeding can be resumed and proceeded if the criminal case does not proceed or which disposal is being unduly delayed. Moreover, standard of proof in the departmental as well as criminal proceeding are completely different, as in the departmental proceeding, it is the preponderance of the possibility and in criminal proceeding the charge has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In the departmental proceeding what is concerned is to maintain the discipline in service and also efficiency in public service and, therefore, it is expediting that the disciplinary proceeding is conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible, so that the unwanted person can be removed and on the other hand the delinquent employee is not guilty, cloud of suspension should be removed early. 17. In the instant case the facts are not complicated and no complicated question of law is also involved. The charges levelled against the petitioner in departmental proceeding are very grave. 17. In the instant case the facts are not complicated and no complicated question of law is also involved. The charges levelled against the petitioner in departmental proceeding are very grave. At the same time though the charge sheet was filed as long back as on 18.2.2002, the charge is yet to be framed in the criminal case, though more than three years have elapsed. There is also no likelihood of the criminal proceeding coming to end at an early date. On the other hand the petitioner is going to retire on 1.9.2005. The charges framed against the petitioner fall in the category of disciplinary proceeding covering the area of misconduct pertaining to the devotion of duty and also lack of integrity. On the other hand in the criminal proceeding the area covered could be culpability from the point of view of criminal law. 18. In view of the above, the prayer of the writ petitioner to stay the departmental proceeding, till conclusion of the criminal proceeding, pending against him, cannot be accepted and hence rejected. 19. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though under the 1971 Regulation, the petitioner is entitled to take defence assistance of his choice, to assist him in the departmental proceeding, the authority in spite of the consent given by Jatindra Nath Bora, refused to allow him to act as defence assistant vide order dated 24.1.2003. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that before submission of the written statement an enquiry officer was appointed and the date of enquiry was fixed and also the witnesses were summoned. 20. The petitioner filed an application dated 25.9.2002 seeking stay of the departmental proceeding but nothing has been done by the respondents regarding the disposal of the said application. The petitioner, therefore, was obviously under the impression that he is required to file the written statement on defence only upon disposal of his application dated 25.9.2002. 21. Regulation 58(8) of the 1971 Regulation provides as under: 58(8). The petitioner, therefore, was obviously under the impression that he is required to file the written statement on defence only upon disposal of his application dated 25.9.2002. 21. Regulation 58(8) of the 1971 Regulation provides as under: 58(8). The employee may take the assistance of any other employee of the Corporation or any State or Central Government employee to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. Note (1) : The Corporation shall pay traveling allowance only in respect of the employees of the Corporation and not Central/State Government employees. Note (2) : The employee shall not take the assistance of any other employee of the Corporation or any State or Central Govt. employee who has two pending disciplinary cases in hand in which he has to give assistance. 22. On a bare reading of the said regulation it is evident that the employee can take assistance of any other employee of the Corporation or State or Central Government, in the departmental proceeding conducted against him and if such defence assistant is an employee of the Corporation, the Corporation shall have to pay the travelling allowance. However, there is a condition in taking such defence assistant, which is that, such person shall not have two disciplinary cases in hand in which he has to give assistance. The Joint Manager (V & S) by the order dated 24.1.2003 refused to allow the petitioner to take assistance of Sri Jatindra Nath Bora, Assistant Manager (QC) on the ground that he is not under the administrative control of the Assam region. Regulation does not provide that to the assistance of a co-employee of the Corporation, he must be from the same region. That being the position, the grounds on which the petitioner was not allowed to take assistance of the co-employee of his choice, cannot sustain in law, in view of the provision contained in the aforesaid regulation. Regulation does not provide that to the assistance of a co-employee of the Corporation, he must be from the same region. That being the position, the grounds on which the petitioner was not allowed to take assistance of the co-employee of his choice, cannot sustain in law, in view of the provision contained in the aforesaid regulation. Therefore, the authority is directed to allow the petitioner to take assistance of Sri Jatindra Nath Bora, Assistant Manager (QC) in the departmental proceeding, subject to his willingness in that regard and also having not more than two disciplinary proceedings pending with him, in which he is to act as the defence assistant. The authority shall also allow ten days time to the petitioner to file the written statement in defence against the charges levelled against him in the departmental proceeding. The respondent-authorities shall thereafter proceed with the enquiry and complete the same as expeditiously as possible, subject to the provisions contained in the 1971 Regulation. 23. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as indicated above. No costs.