JUDGMENT Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - Instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by the second respondent i.e. Enquiry Officer-cum-Superintending Engineer, OP Circle, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Karnal, in terms of which an application moved by the petitioners herein seeking sanction for engagement of a counsel to represent them in the enquiry proceedings, has been declined. 2. Brief facts emanating from the pleadings on record may be noticed. 3. Petitioners are serving as Junior Engineers/Junior Engineers-I under the respondent-Nigam. FIR number 389 dated 26.10.2016 was registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamunanagar under Sections 409, 411, 420 and 120-B IPC and Section 137 of Indian Electricity Act as also Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Even though petitioners were not specifically named in the FIR but during the course of investigation, culpability of the petitioners also cropped up and allegations against them were as regards mis-utilization of the Nigam's material and having indulged in corrupt practices. Petitioners were arrested and thereafter they were placed under suspension vide office order dated 07.11.2016. Apart from criminal prosecution, departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioners in terms of serving upon them separate charge-sheets carrying even date i.e.24.05.2017. However, an order dated 20.07.2017 was passed withdrawing the charge-sheets without prejudice to the right of the competent authority to issue charge-sheets afresh. On the same very date i.e. 20.07.2017 fresh charge-sheets were again served upon the petitioners. Copies of the charge-sheets carrying even date i.e. 20.07.2017 have been appended alongwith the writ petition as Annexure P-2 (colly). Petitioners were granted 30 days time to respond to the charge-sheet. However, even prior to expiry of the 30 days time period an Enquiry Officer was appointed. Such action was challenged by the petitioners in terms of filing of CWP No.19715 of 2017 and other connected petitions. The afore-noticed writ petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 01.09.2017 and the following order was passed:- Inter alia contends that FIR dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) was lodged in which the petitioner was not named. Such action was challenged by the petitioners in terms of filing of CWP No.19715 of 2017 and other connected petitions. The afore-noticed writ petition came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 01.09.2017 and the following order was passed:- Inter alia contends that FIR dated 26.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) was lodged in which the petitioner was not named. Thereafter, on 24.05.2017 (Annexure P-2), on the strength of the said FIR and on account of the mis-utilization of the Nigam's material, action was proposed under Regulation 7 of the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam (Haryana State Electricity Board) Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1990 but the said charge-sheet was withdrawn on 20.07.2017 (Annexure P-3) and a fresh one was issued on the same date (Annexure P-4). Similarly, vide order of even date (Annexure P-5), the Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner, which was to be submitted within 30 days from the receipt of the communication and as per the abovesaid regulations. Under Clause 7(8), the competent authority, on the receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet, is to take a decision not to impose a major punishment, as laid down in Regulations 4 (vi) to (x), by dispensing with the holding of enquiry and inflict straightway any of the minor penalties, as laid down in Clauses (i) to (v) (Annexure P-7). It is, accordingly, contended that by not resorting to the said procedure and appointing an Enquiry Officer straightway, the right of the petitioner has been prejudiced. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in D.H.B.V.N.L. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar & others Vs. Yashvir Singh Gulia, (2013) 11 SCC 173 . Notice of motion for 01.12.2017. In the meantime, the enquiry proceedings shall remain stayed. A copy of this order be supplied to counsel for the petitioner(s), under the signatures of Special Secretary of this Court. Photocopy of this order be placed on the record of each connected case." 4. The respondent-Nigam having been served with the writ petition, issued an order dated 01.03.2018 withdrawing the previous order vide which Enquiry Officer was appointed. Taking note of such development, on 20.09.2018, this Court observed in CWP No.19715 of 2017 that "Initially, petitioner will file reply to the charge-sheet dated 20.07.2017 within a period of 30 days and thereafter the respondents will proceed in accordance with law" 5. Taking note of such development, on 20.09.2018, this Court observed in CWP No.19715 of 2017 that "Initially, petitioner will file reply to the charge-sheet dated 20.07.2017 within a period of 30 days and thereafter the respondents will proceed in accordance with law" 5. Petitioners, thereafter, submitted their replies to the chargesheet and raised various contentions and submissions for the charges to be dropped. One of the grounds taken in the reply was that all the petitioners have been charge-sheeted under HSEB (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations 1990 whereas departmental proceedings ought to be conducted under the UHBVNL (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations 2017 and which had come into force w.e.f. 09.03.2017. The Nigam, however, appointed an Enquiry Officer vide order dated 06.11.2018 (Annexure P-6). Petitioners challenged order dated 06.11.2018 in CWP No.30015 of 2018 and which is still pending consideration. Be that as it may the issue as regards appointment of the Enquiry Officer does not fall for consideration in the instant writ petition. 6. After appointment of the Enquiry Officer, petitioners filed an application dated 14.12.2018 seeking sanction from the Enquiry Officer for engaging a counsel to defend them in the enquiry proceedings. Such request was declined in terms of order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-9). It is against such brief factual backdrop that the instant writ petition has been filed. 7. Counsel representing the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have a legitimate and constitutional right to be defended in the enquiry proceedings so as to ensure that the same is conducted in a fair and impartial manner. It is contended that the proceedings are being conducted by the department through a Presenting Officer i.e. a Circle Superintendent and who is well versed in law and is aware of all the rules/instructions/circulars issued by the Nigam. On the other hand petitioners are mere diploma holders having acquired such qualification after matriculation and as such would be handicapped in setting out their defence. It is argued that under such circumstances the impugned order cannot sustain. 8. Counsel has further raised a submission that the Enquiry Officer while declining the request of the petitioners for engagement of a counsel as gravely erred while assuming that a discretion vested in him to allow or not to allow the petitioners to engage a counsel. It is argued that under such circumstances the impugned order cannot sustain. 8. Counsel has further raised a submission that the Enquiry Officer while declining the request of the petitioners for engagement of a counsel as gravely erred while assuming that a discretion vested in him to allow or not to allow the petitioners to engage a counsel. It is urged that assistance of a counsel during the course of enquiry proceedings was a vested right available to the petitioners. It is also the submission advanced by counsel that in a number of judgments it has been held that refusal to permit a charged employee to engage a legal practitioner causes serious prejudice and amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in C.L. Subramaniam versus Collector of Customs Cochin, (1972) 3 SCC 542 and J.K. Aggarwal versus Haryana Seeds Development Corporation LTD. and others, (1991) 2 SCC 283 . 9. Per contra learned Senior counsel representing the respondentNigam submits that the Enquiry Officer has duly applied his mind and has exercised the discretion in a judicious manner while rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking assistance of a counsel. It is submitted that the impugned order is a well-reasoned speaking order and which would not call for any interference. That apart the impugned order has been passed in conformity with the provisions contained in the Uttar Haryaba Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 2017 (hereinafter to be referred to 2017 Rules). Dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for by contending that the present writ petition is nothing but an attempt to delay and stall the enquiry proceedings. 10. Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and pleadings on record have been perused. 11. The validity of the order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by the second respondent/Enquiry Officer declining sanction for engagement of a counsel to represent the petitioners in the enquiry proceedings would require examination against the backdrop of the relevant rule i.e. Rule 7 (A) (13) of the 2017 rules and which reads as follows:- "7. 11. The validity of the order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by the second respondent/Enquiry Officer declining sanction for engagement of a counsel to represent the petitioners in the enquiry proceedings would require examination against the backdrop of the relevant rule i.e. Rule 7 (A) (13) of the 2017 rules and which reads as follows:- "7. Procedure for imposing major penalty- A) Enquiry before imposition of major penalty- (13) The person against whom a charge is being inquired into, shall be allowed to obtain the assistance of the Government employee or a retired Government Employee if he so desires, in order to produce his defence before the Inquiry Officer. If the charge or charges are likely to result in the dismissal of the person from the service of the Government, such person may, with the sanction of the Inquiry Officer, be represented by counsel. Provided: that if in any enquiry, counsel is engaged on behalf of any department of Govt.,the person against whom the charges are inquired into shall also be entitled to engage counsel. Provided: further that the assistance of the particular Govt.employees shall be allowed if the Inquiry Officer is satisfied in the circumstances of the case and that he may be spared by the department concerned for that purpose." 12. Bare perusal of the provision would show that a person against whom a charge is being inquired into may be allowed assistance of a counsel but subject to sanction of the Enquiry Officer. Needless to observe that the discretion vested with the Enquiry Officer under Rule 7(A) (13) is to be exercised judiciously and with circumspection. The application submitted by the petitioners seeking permission to engage a counsel has been placed on record at Annnexure P-7. In such application it was averred that even though technically qualified yet the petitioners do not have any legal knowledge and are not conversant with the proceedings/procedure to be undertaken in the enquiry proceedings. It was further asserted in the application that the enquiry proceedings are being taken up by the department through a trained officer i.e. Circle Superintendent who is in possession of all the rules, instructions, circulars, charge-sheets, decisions of various Courts ( for and against employees) and has had an opportunity to interact with lawyers of the department, legal assistants and senior officers of the Nigam. In other words the petitioners in their request for permission to engage a counsel had stressed that the Presenting Officer is far better equipped in terms of knowledge of law etc. The request of the petitioners has been declined by the Enquiry Officer by adopting the following reasoning "As per Rule 7 (A) (13) of Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulation-2017, the enquiry authority may permit the services of lawyers to the charged person, but this rule vests discretion. In the matter of exercise of this discretion one of the relevant factors is whether there is likelihood of the combat being unequal entailing a miscarriage or failure of justice and a denial of a real and reasonable opportunity for defence by reason of the charged person being pitted against a Presenting Officer, who is trained in law. In the present case, department is being represented by the Circle Superintendent, who is not legally trained in the departmental enquiry proceedings and also not in a position of Legal Advisor. The applicant charged person has taken plea that the Circle Superintendent is legally sound, as he is doing the official work from day one of his/her appointment. He has got the opportunity to discuss the matter with the Lawyer, legal Assistants and senior officers of the Nigam. The real facts are that a Circle Superintendent works in the office of the Superintending Engineer concerned in the UHBVNL; he cannot directly take any legal advice. Moreover, in the Circle Office there is no post of any Law Officer/Legal Advisor of Legal Assistant from whom the Circle-Superintendent may take legal advice. In view of the above discussed position, the Circle Superintendent cannot be terms as legally trained officer. So the application of Sh.Gurmeet Singh, JE-1 charged person requesting to allow him to engage counsel of his choice to represent him the present departmental enquiry proceeding is not allowed and hence rejected." 13. The Enquiry Officer has dealt with the apprehension as also assertion made by the petitioners in their application seeking engagement of a counsel by assigning reasons that the department is being represented by the Circle Superintendent and who is not legally trained in departmental enquiry proceedings. It has further been reasoned in the impugned order that the Circle Superintendent works in the office of the Superintending Engineer concerned and does not have any access to legal advice. 14. It has further been reasoned in the impugned order that the Circle Superintendent works in the office of the Superintending Engineer concerned and does not have any access to legal advice. 14. On a previous date of hearing i.e.10.12.2020, this Court had directed counsel for the respondent-Nigam to complete instructions with regard to the previous conduct of enquiries/association with departmental enquiries by the concerned Circle Superintendent and who had been appointed as the Presenting Officer in the enquiry initiated against the petitioners. By way of response to the order dated 10.12.2020 passed by this Court an additional affidavit dated 16.12.2020 of the Administrative Officer, CEOP, UHBVNL, Panchkula, has been filed and placed on record. As per contents of the affidavit Sh. Rajesh Gandhi, who has been appointed as the Presenting Officer in the enquiry case of the petitioners herein has conducted four previous enquiries in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. It has further been deposed that the Presenting Officer is an employee who was initially appointed in the Nigam as a Lower Division Clerk and thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant and thereafter as Superintendent. A categoric assertion in the affidavit is that the Presenting Officer concerned is holding a post of clerical cadre and has no legal document/qualifications. As such in the considered view of this Court, the reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-9) are valid and cogent. 15. In National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. K.V. Rama Reddy, (2006) 11 SCC 645 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:- "The law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that there is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such representation (Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd., (1960) 3 SCR 407 : AIR 1960 SC 914 , Dunlop Rubber Co. v. Workmen, (1965) 2 SCR 139 : AIR (1965) SC 1392, Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993) 2 SCC 115 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 360 and Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers Association and Another, (2001) 9 SCC 540 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1043}." 16. v. Workmen, (1965) 2 SCR 139 : AIR (1965) SC 1392, Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993) 2 SCC 115 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 360 and Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers Association and Another, (2001) 9 SCC 540 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 1043}." 16. Adverting to the facts of the present case this Court has perused the charge-sheets served upon the petitioners. The precise articles of charge are that owner of Shubham Electrical, Yamuna Nagar namely Ajay Kumar in collusion and connivance of the officials of the Nigam used to purchase Nigam's transformers and thereafter removed the articles from these transformers for purpose of using the same in private transformers. Premises of Shubham Electrical was raided and upon checking 11 transformers of different capacities were found. Ajay Kumar had confessed that out of the 11 transformers, 4 transformers were that of the Nigam. This had led to the registration of FIR No.389 dated 26.10.2016. During investigation Ajay Kumar has suffered a disclosure statement that he had purchased 50 transformers of different capacity and oil drum during the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 and had sold/installed the transformers in the fields of farmers in the area of Saharanpur and Muzaffarnagar. As per article of charge there are allegations of the petitioners being involved and having unauthorizedly sold Nigam's material with a mala fide intention and ulterior motive of wrongful gain and having caused loss to the Nigam. 17. In a nutshell allegations against the petitioners are of breach of trust, mis-appropriation of Nigam's properties and being involved in corrupt practice. 18. Against the backdrop of such allegations, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners themselves would be well-equipped to answer and to respond to the charges and to set up their defence. The allegations do not raise any complex questions of law. It has not been shown and demonstrated to this Court as to how a legal practitioner would be in a better position to assist the petitioners as against the allegations levelled. 19. This Court would have no hesitation in recording that the impugned order denying assistance of a counsel in the departmental proceedings would not cause any serious prejudice to the petitioners and the same would also not amount to a denial of reasonable opportunity to defend against the backdrop of the articles of charge that have been formulated. 20. 19. This Court would have no hesitation in recording that the impugned order denying assistance of a counsel in the departmental proceedings would not cause any serious prejudice to the petitioners and the same would also not amount to a denial of reasonable opportunity to defend against the backdrop of the articles of charge that have been formulated. 20. The reliance placed by counsel upon judgments in C.L. Subramanniam and J.K. Aggarwal (Supra) is misplaced. In the case of C.L. Subramaniam, the delinquent had been pitted against a trained prosecutor and it was under such factual premise that the Apex Court had made the following observations:- "The grievance of the appellant was that he was pitted against a trained prosecutor and not that Sivaraman was a legal practitioner. The Disciplinary Authority did not consider that grievance. It brushed aside the request of the appellant on the ground that Sivaraman was not a legal practitioner, a consideration which was not relied on by the appellant. The grounds urged by the appellant in support of his request for permission to engage a legal practitioner were by no means irrelevant. The fact that the case against the appellant was being handled by a trained prosecutor was a good ground for allowing the appellant to engage a legal practitioner to defend him lest the scales should be weighed against him. The Disciplinary Authority completely ignored that circumstance. Therefore, that authority clearly failed to exercise the power conferred on it under the rule. It is not unlikely that the Disciplinary Authority's refusal to permit the appellant to engage a legal practitioner in the circumstances mentioned earlier had caused serious prejudice to the appellant and had amounted to a denial of reasonable opportunity to defend himself." 21. Likewise in the case of J.K. Aggarwal (supra) the Presenting Officer appointed in the departmental proceedings was a person with legal attainments and experience being the Personnel and Administrative Manager and who was stated to be a man of law. 22. Facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the Presenting Officer in the departmental proceedings being conducted against the petitioners herein is holding a clerical cadre post with no legal backgrounds/qualifications. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioners as such would have no applicability. 23. 22. Facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the Presenting Officer in the departmental proceedings being conducted against the petitioners herein is holding a clerical cadre post with no legal backgrounds/qualifications. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioners as such would have no applicability. 23. For the reasons stated above no infirmity is found in the order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by the second respondent declining sanction for engagement of a counsel during the course of departmental proceedings. 24. No merit. 25. Writ petition is dismissed. 26. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.