IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 144 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/01/2008 in WP NO : 146 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. S.V.R. Lakshmi W/o. Ram Bhadraiah Hindu Exchange, Guntakal, Ananthapur District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, S.C. Railway, Guntakal Diviison, Guntakal, Ananthapur District. 2 Chief Medical Superintendent, S.C. Railway Guntakal, Ananthapur District. 3 Chief Medical Director, S.C. Railway Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 4 Sri N. Jayaprakash S/o.Not known Guntakal Division, Gutti, Ananthapur District. 5 Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, S.C. Railway, Guntakal, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.J.M.NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents.: MR.A.KRISHNAM RAJU The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No:144 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This appeal is filed by the appellant-writ petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 22.1.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.146 of 2008. The appellant filed the writ petition seeking to declare the action of the 5th respondent in rejecting her claim for change of 4th respondent as Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 13.11.2007, which is confirmed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 22.11.2007 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, to direct respondents 1 & 5 to change the 4th respondent as Enquiry Officer duly nominating any other Officer as Enquiry Officer, on the ground that the representation seeking to permit her to take the assistance of one A. Peddanna, a Head Constable, in the proceedings, has been rejected by the said Enquiry Officer. The learned Single Judge having observed that Rule 153 (8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules makes it clear that it is not obligatory on the part of the respondents to appoint a defence assistant for a delinquent employee and if the petitioner wants to take assistance of an officer, she can do so and the same is permissible as per the Rule 153(8) of the Rules and however, there is no obligation to arrange for a defence assistance to the petitioner from the respondents’ side, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the enquiry officer has not permitted the appellant to submit any document and to cross examine the witnesses and he has not supplied the documents and thereby, the appellant is deprived of her opportunity to defend her case effectively in consonance with the documents. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that though the enquiry officer has given all the reasonable opportunities to defend her case but the appellant has failed to avail the same and apart from that, she failed to appear before the enquiry officer regularly and besides that, the appellant having received the documents and having admitted the said fact in the preliminary enquiry, cannot take a stand that as if, she has not been afforded any opportunity. Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that the rule 153 (8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, make it obligatory on the part of the authorities to appoint a defence assistant for a delinquent employee. It is needless to mention that the petitioner has submitted a representation seeking to permit her to take the assistance of one A.Peddanna. In the present facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, We feel it a fit case wherein the respondents can be directed to comply with the said rule by providing a defence assistant and also furnishing copy of the documents, if any required by the appellant. It is further made clear that the enquiry shall be concluded in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is needless to mention that the appellant shall make herself present before the Enquiry Officer as and when her presence is required. In default, the Enquiry Officer is at liberty to conclude the enquiry and pass final orders in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date: 19th March, 2008 Nn/Gurc HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No:144 OF 2008 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 19.03.2008