JUDGMENT R.G. Avachat, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.P., appearing on behalf of the respondents, heard finally. 2. In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, vires of the Government Circular dated 7th October, 2015 is questioned. 3. The petitioner has retired from service with the Department of Forest, State of Maharashtra after having put in 30 years of service. At the time of his retirement, his position was of Assistant Conservator of Forests. Post-retirement, the petitioner started working as professional Defence Assistant in Departmental Enquiries initiated against employees of the Forest Department. In a Departmental Enquiry ("D.E.", for short), being Case No.409 of 2016, the delinquents engaged the petitioner to defend them. The delinquents, therefore, preferred an application seeking permission to allow them to be represented by the petitioner in the D.E. Respondent No.2, who is the Regional Departmental Enquiry Officer, Aurangabad, turned down the request on the ground that the petitioner, during his tenure, had faced one D.E. For rejection of the application, reliance was placed on clause 2 (1) of the Government Circular dated 7th October, 2015. Clause 2 (1) of the said Govt. Circular disqualifies a retired Government servant to act as Defence Assistant in a D.E., who, during his tenure, had faced D.E. or D.E. was proposed against him post-retirement and against whom, a penalty has been imposed in such D.E. 4. Mr. A.M. Hajare, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Rule 8 (8) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 ("MCS Rules", for short) does not speak of any such condition. The impugned Govt. Circular is illegal and invalid as being against the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The authority of the State to pass such Govt. Circular has also been taken exception to. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been exonerated of the only D.E. he had faced during his tenure spread over 30 years and Government employee, against whom D.E. is initiated, has a right to engage a Defence Assistant of his choice. Putting any condition as is contained in clause 2 (1) of the Govt. Circular would be violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashment of clause 2 (1) of the impugned Govt. Putting any condition as is contained in clause 2 (1) of the Govt. Circular would be violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashment of clause 2 (1) of the impugned Govt. Circular and the decision of respondent No.2 disallowing the petitioner to act as a Defence Assistant. 5. Mr. S.B. Joshi, learned A.G.P. would, on the other hand, submit that the impugned Govt. Circular was issued in consonance with Rule 8(8) of the MCS Rules. In the view of of the learned A.G.P., the word "vkf.k" (and), appearing in clause 2 (1) of the impugned Govt. Circular has to be read disjunctively from the words preceding thereto. The impugned Govt. Circular was issued with an object to ensure that the retired Government employees, who had put in blotless service, are only allowed to act as Defence Assistant. RELEVANT PROVISIONS : 6. Rule 8(8) of the MCS Rules is in the following terms :- "8(8) (a)The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant posted in any office either at his headquarters or at the place where the inquiry is held, 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 : Provided that the Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant posted at any other station. If the inquiring authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, so permits. Note.- The Government servant shall not take the assistance of any other Government servant who has three pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. (b) The Government servant may also take the assistance of a retired Government servant to present the case on his behalf, subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Governor, from time to time, by general or special order in this behalf." Clause (b) of Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 8 empowers the Governor to impose such conditions regarding classification of a retired Government servant to act as a Defence Assistant. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, could not be heard to say that the State has no authority to impose any condition as has been done by issuing the impugned Government Circular. 7. The Notification dated 1st April, 2010 is issued under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 8 (8) of the MCS Rules is amended pursuant to Notification dated 1st April, 2010 by exercising powers under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. A Rule made in exercise of powers under the Proviso to Article 309 constitutes law. The impugned circular dated 7th October, 2015 is an executive instruction. The same has to be in consonance with the statutory rules. If the rules are silent, executive instruction can be issued to supplement the rules. Rule 8 (8) of the MCS Rules empowers the delinquent to take assistance of the retired Government servant to present his case in D.E. The services of the retired Government servant can be obtained by the delinquent subject to terms and conditions that may be approved by the Government from time to time by special or general order. It is within the powers and authority of the Government to issue the circular dated 7th October, 2015. The said circular will have to stand the test of Rule 8 (8) of the MCS Rules and will have to be read in a manner it does not supplant Rule 8(8). 8. The question now is whether the condition contained in clause 2(1) of the impugned Govt. Circular is legal and valid. For better appreciation, it is desirable to reproduce clause 2 (1) in verbatim, which is as under :- 9. The words of a Statute are first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context, or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary. It is presumed that each and every word of a Statute has been consciously brought in, in each provision and every word has its own play. The construction which comforts the basis with reason, common sense, realities and main purpose of the scheme of the Act has to be preferred. It is presumed that each and every word of a Statute has been consciously brought in, in each provision and every word has its own play. The construction which comforts the basis with reason, common sense, realities and main purpose of the scheme of the Act has to be preferred. CONJUNCTIVE AND DISJUNCTIVE WORDS "OR and "AND" The word "or" is normally disjunctive and the word "and" is normally conjunctive, but at times they are read as vice versa to give effect to the manifest intention of the Legislature. The word "or" does not generally mean "and" and the word "and" does not generally mean "or". The reading of the word "or" as "and" is not to be resorted to "unless some other part of the same Statute or the clear intention of it requires that to be done. Where provision is clear and unambiguous, the word "and" cannot be read as "or" by applying the principle of reading down. (Principles of Statutory Interpretation 13th Edition by Justice G.P. Singh) 10. The learned A.G.P. would submit that the word, "and" ( ) appearing in clause 2 (1) needs to be read as "or" since the preceding words thereto have been placed, with commas between them. According to the learned A.G.P., the object behind introducing the said clause was to ensure that no retired Government servant, who had even faced a D.E., though exonerated therein, shall be permitted to act as a Defence Assistant. 11. If we accept the interpretation proposed by the learned A.G.P., the provision would defeat the petitioner''s right to act as a Defence Assistant. In criminal jurisprudence, a person is presumed to be innocent. On his acquittal of a criminal charge, the presumption gets reinforced. It needs no mention that the criminal charge is required to be proved upto its hilt i.e. beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas, finding in the D.E. is arrived at appreciating the evidence therein on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Once a delinquent is exonerated of a D.E., his innocence gets reinforced. If we prefer the interpretation as is suggested by the learned A.G.P., the provision would not stand to reason. Whereas, finding in the D.E. is arrived at appreciating the evidence therein on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Once a delinquent is exonerated of a D.E., his innocence gets reinforced. If we prefer the interpretation as is suggested by the learned A.G.P., the provision would not stand to reason. If the preceding words namely, a retired Government employee should not have faced a D.E. during his tenure or enquiry should not have been proposed against him post-retirement, are read as it is, then the later part of the clause namely, ''pursuant to such enquiry, he should not have been held guilty and punished'' ( ) would become redundant or otiose. The effect to each and every word of the clause needs to be given which would make entire provision workable without leading to unreasonable and absurd result. The impugned clause, if read as it is, would impose disqualification on a Government servant, who has been exonerated of a charge. If the clause is so interpreted, it may prejudicially affect the right of petitioner to act as a Defence Assistant pursuant to Rule 8(8) of MCS Rules. Moreover, if the later part of the impugned clause is read and interpreted in isolation, it would carry no meaning at all. The last clause has, therefore, to be read in conjunction with the clauses previous thereto. The impugned clause is therefore to be read to mean that a retired Government servant is not disqualified from representing another Government servant in the D.E., if he has been exonerated in the D.E. conducted against him. 12. In the result, we uphold Clause 2(1) of the Government Circular dated 7th October, 2015 with the following interpretation :- "A retired Government servant is not precluded from representing another retired Government servant in the Departmental Enquiry, if he is exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry initiated against him." Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. No costs.