K.S.Prasanth Kumar vs State Of Kerala

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“i. to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash Exhibit P1 as it is vaxatious and factually incorrect.

ii. to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash Exhibit P6, as it is vitiated due to malafides, non application of mind and violation of principles of natural

justice.

iii. to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th and 5th respondents to appoint presenting officer for the conduct of enquiry as per Rule 15 of the

KCS (CC & A) Rules.

iv. to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appoint legal practitioner for presenting his case before the

enquiring authority.â€​

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though Ext.P5 representation has been preferred by the petitioner seeking assistance of a lawyer

in the enquiry, the same has been rejected by Ext.P6.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry officer in the petitioner's case is a District Judge and that as such, he is

entitled to the services of a lawyer for defending his case. The learned counsel has placed reliance on several decisions including the decisions of the

Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi University and others [(2015) 5 SCC 549 ]to contend that where the enquiry officer is a legally trained

person (a retired High Court Judge in that case), the petitioner is entitled to assistance of a legal practitioner for the conduct of the enquiry

proceedings.

The learned Senior Government Pleader drew my attention to the specific provisions contained in Rule15(6) of the Kerala Civil Services

(Classification, Control and Appeal )Rules 1960. It is submitted that there is a specific provision that Government Servant is entitled to engage an

assistant of any other Government servant of his choice to defend him in the disciplinary proceedings. The Rule specifically states that the employee

would not be entitled to avail legal representation for the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Senior Government Pleader also would

place the decision of the Apex Court in D.G.Railway Protection Force V. K.Raghuram Babu [(2008)4 SCC 406 ]to contend that a departmental

enquiry is not a criminal trial and Rules which permit only a restricted or controled assistance do not violate the principles of natural justice.

In Ext.P6, the request made by the complainant for the appointment of a presenting officer has been declined. The petitioner's request made in

Ext.P5 for the engagement of a lawyer to assist in disciplinary proceedings has also been rejected. However, I notice that the petitioner would be

entitled to the assistance of any other Government Servant or a retired Government servant who is not a legal practitioner. Rule 15(6) specifically

permits the engagement of such assistant in the disciplinary proceedings. The engagement of such assistant is not dependent on the appointment of the

presenting officer in the enquiry.

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the request of the petitioner to be assisted in the enquiry by a Government Servant of his

choice or retired Government servant is liable to be considered.

There will accordingly be a direction to the respondents to defer the enquiry till the petitioner makes an application within two weeks from today for

assistance in the enquiry by a Government servant or a retired Government servant of his choice. If such an application is preferred by the petitioner

within two weeks, the same shall be considered on its merits in terms of Rule 15(6) of the KCS (CC&A) Rules and an appropriate decision shall be

taken thereon. The enquiry shall be proceeded thereafter and be completed without delay.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.