IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4536 of 2009 Between: K. Chandrasekhar Rao, S/o. K. Venkat Rao, R/o. H.No. 4-2-151/325, Opp : Grandhalayam, Teacher's Colony, Srinivasa Nagar, Khammam - 507 003. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Life Insurance Corporation of India, Warangal Division, Rep by its Senior Divisional Manager, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 2 M. Narayan Reddy, Enquiry Officer, Manager (I.T), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Warangal Division, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.ARUN KUMAR FOR MR V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: MR.BATHULA VENKATESWAR RAO The Court made the following : O R D E R: The grievance of the petitioner, in short, in this writ petition is that respondent No.2 is not permitting him to avail the services of Sri C.L.Narasimha Rao (HGA) SR No.516761, DO Warangal, as assisting employee, to assist him in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by respondent No.1. By the impugned letter issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner was advised to choose one of the employees from his own branch. Under Regulation No.39 (2) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, no order, imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in clauses (b) to (g) of sub-regulation (1), shall be passed by the disciplinary authority, without giving him a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charge or charges. The expression “reasonable opportunity” shall be liberally construed and, in my considered view, there is no justification for respondent No.2 to prevent the petitioner from engaging the services of a co-employee working in a different branch. Such an insistence would only place undue restriction on the right of the petitioner to effectively defend his case. In the absence of any legal bar on the petitioner to engage the services of an employee of his choice, the impugned letter cannot be sustained in law. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned letter is quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to engage the services of Sri C.L.Narasimha Rao of Warangal Branch or any other employee for that matter, to assist him in the disciplinary proceedings, pending against him. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 24th March, 2009 vrn