HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.5351 of 2010 09-03-2010 Between: Ch.Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affair, and three othrers … Respondents Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the 4th respondent for not passing orders for appointing the Presenting Officer preferably a legal practitioner to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charges, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner is a CRPF Constable and has been facing disciplinary proceedings. At an early point of time, he requested the disciplinary authority to permit him to engage the services of a legal practitioner. As the said request was turned down, he filed W.P.No.11018 of 2009, which was dismissed by holding that the petitioner is unable to rely upon any provision which entitles him to engage a legal practitioner in the disciplinary proceedings. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner filed W.A.No.52 of 2010, which was also dismissed on 01-02-2010. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that after dismissal of the Writ Appeal, he made an application to the respondents seeking to appoint a Presenting Officer, preferably a legal practitioner. In spite of such request, no steps are being taken to appoint the Presenting Officer. 4. Under the Rule 14 (5)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the disciplinary authority itself inquires into any article of charge or appoints an Inquiring Authority for holding any inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as the “Presenting Officer” to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge. 5. From a reading of the above Rule, it is for the disciplinary authority whether to appoint a Presenting Officer or not. It is not for the charged officer to request for appointment of a Presenting Officer. In that view of the matter, there is no legal right to the petitioner to seek appointment of a Presenting Officer, preferably a legal practitioner. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th MARCH 2010 TSNR