IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4624 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- P.GANESAN NO. 882294559 CT /GD A COY, CISF UNIT, COCHIN PORT TURST, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF HEAD QUARTERS CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF HEAD QUARTERS , SOUTHERN SECTOR,CHENNAI. 3. THE COMMANDANT CISF UNIT, COCHIN PORT TURST, COCHIN. 4. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, DEPUTY COMMANDANT, SHRI.V.G.MARKAM, CISF UNIT, COCHIN PORT TURST, COCHIN. 5. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.4624 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th February,2009 J U D G M E N T Complaint raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that in the enquiry proceedings his request to engage an Assistant Government Servant/Defence Assistant of his choice has been denied. Petitioner herein is presently working as a Constable in CISF Unit, CPT, Kochi. Memo of charges is dated 8.11.2008 and the enquiry is being held under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2001. Petitioner has already denied the charges by filing a reply dated 19.11.2008. As per Exhibit-P2, an enquiry officer was appointed and preliminary hearing was held on 29.11.2008. On that day, the petitioner requested to allow him to engage a Assistant Government Servant/Defence assistant of his choice as he is unable to defend the case by himself, which is produced as Exhibit- P3. He has given the consent certificate by another constable I.M Paul Raj of CISF Unit, who is from Ramagundam. Then he was informed by letter dated 22.12.2008 that he will not be allowed to engage anybody W.P ( C) No.4624 of 2009 2 from Units outside the Cochin Port Trust as Defence Assistant. It is based on Rule 36 (8) (a) of the CISF Rules, 2001. Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation before the 1st respondent complaining about the denial on the part of the respondents 3 and 4 to engage a Defence Assistant of his choice. According to him, again steps were taken to continue the enquiry proceedings on a day to day basis and he was issued with a notice to hold the proceedings on 2.2.2009. He was on medical leave then and he did not appear for the enquiry. 2. According to the petitioner, nobody from the present Unit is willing to assist the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings. Accordingly, he is challenging the relevant rules as arbitrary. 3. Heard learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for all the respondents. Rule 36 (8) (a) of CISF Rules reads thus: “36 (8) (a). The enrolled member of the Force so charged may be permitted by the inquiring authority to present his case with the assistance of any other member of the Force posted at the place of inquiry. He will give three choices for his W.P ( C) No.4624 of 2009 3 defence assistance and the controlling officer will depute any one of three indicated by him.” Therefore, going by the said Rules, the Defence Assistant should be a person posted at the place of inquiry. Three choices can be made by the delinquent and the controlling officer is given power to depute any one of the three indicated by him. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that there are altogether 900 personnels in four units in Kochi. He can nominate anybody from these units as Defence Assistant in the enquiry. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 11.2.2009 it was adjourned to this date to enable the petitioner to find out the names and furnish the details of the same. I.A No.2330 of 2009 has filed for producing Exhibits P11 and P12 interim orders passed by the Karnataka High Court in a similar case. 5. Even in the affidavit filed along with I.A. No.2330 of 2009, the petitioner has not given any names of members of units in Kochi and who could be engaged an defence assistant. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the challenge against the Rules. It cannot be said that W.P ( C) No.4624 of 2009 4 the Rule framed is so arbitrary and it results in any discriminatory treatment to the petitioner. It is only one framed to comply with the principles of natural justice and choice is given to the delinquent himself to name three of his associates who are members of the Unit and posted at the place of enquiry. If a person from other state is allowed to be engaged that may cause administrative in conveniences. Therefore, in that view of the matter, I find nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in the rules. 6. If the petitioner gives three choices for his defence assistant from any of the units in Kochi, the same will be considered and appropriate action be taken to allow him to engage such an Assistant of his choice. The petitioner may give a letter indicating the names of three persons within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.4624 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) No.4624 of 2009 6