Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 822 (MP)

DEENBANDHU SAKET v. STATE OF M. P.

2021-12-14

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, SHEEL NAGU

body2021
ORDER SHEEL NAGU, J. – The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by a delinquent employee facing disciplinary proceedings initiated by charge sheet (Annexure-P/1), assailing order dated 4-9-2021 passed by Inquiry Officer denying request of petitioner/delinquent employee for passing necessary directions to the Controlling Authority of the proposed Defence Assistant to relieve the said proposed Defence Assistant to enable petitioner to exercise his right to defend himself. 2. The inquiry officer while passing the impugned order had directed that petitioner/delinquent employee is free to arrange for Defence Assistant as proposed by him for which last opportunity is afforded. 3. It is informed that the proceedings have last been adjourned due to non-presence of Defence Assistant and are now posted in the first week of January, 2022. 4. To take assistance of defence assistant, is a statutory right of delinquent employee, as per the provisions of Rule 14 of M. P. Civil C.C.A. Rules. The relevant provisions of the said rule are reproduced as below : – “The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant 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.” 5. If a delinquent employee proposes a Defence Assistant who is employed elsewhere then the Inquiry Officer ought to take the initiative and pass necessary directions to ensure that the delinquent employee does not remain unrepresented leading to denial of his right to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer in all fairness should request in writing to the Controlling Officer of the proposed defence assistance to act as defence assistant provided there is no other legal impediment. The Inquiry Officer should not leave the delinquent in a lurch. Inquiry Officer ought to remember that he is not a prosecutor but an independent and impartial arbiter and umpire whose prime object is to conduct and conclude the disciplinary proceedings in a fair and impartial manner following the principles of natural justice. 6. The Inquiry Officer should not leave the delinquent in a lurch. Inquiry Officer ought to remember that he is not a prosecutor but an independent and impartial arbiter and umpire whose prime object is to conduct and conclude the disciplinary proceedings in a fair and impartial manner following the principles of natural justice. 6. However, learned counsel for petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court an executive instruction issued by GAD, Government of M. P. dated 18-6-1974 which deals with an issue raised herein and thus for ready reference and convenience the same is reproduced below : – 7. The above executive instruction lay down procedure which appears to be just fair and reasonable and in line with the requirements of principles of natural justice. 8. In view of the above discussion, the present petition stands allowed with the following directions : – (1) To impugned order dated 4-9-2021 (Annexure-P/4) passed by the Inquiry Officer stands quashed to the extent it denies the prayer for engaging proposed Defence Assistant. (2) The Inquiry Officer is directed to initiate request to the Controlling Authority of the proposed Defence Assistant for his consent to relieve the Defence Assistant if there is no legal impedement. (3) In case, the person sought to be engaged as Defence Assistant is declined to be relieved by his Controlling Authority, then Inquiry Officer should give prior intimation and opportunity to delinquent employee to search and engage alternative Defence Assistant. 9. It is expected of the Inquiry Officer in this case to ensure completion of the aforesaid process before proceedings ahead with the inquiry. 10. We make it clear, that this order should not be treated by delinquent as licence to adopt dilatory tactics. The reasonable opportunity afforded to the delinquent, as aforesaid, cannot eclipse the paramount requirement of expeditious completion of D.E. proceedings. 11. The employer herein is well adviced to adopt the executive instructions (supra) in all DEs against its officers and employees by issuing advisories to disciplinary and Inquiry Officers. 12. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.