IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.162 of 2005 Decided on : November 4, 2008 State of H.P. …Petitioner. Versus Ravinder Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : In person. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. State has sought judicial review of the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, through the present writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been ordered to be reimbursed to the respondent, who is an IPS Officer, on account of the fee of the legal practitioner, engaged by him to defend himself in a departmental inquiry, in which the petitioner had engaged a District Attorney, or say a legal practitioner. 3. Admitted facts are that the respondent, who is an IPS Officer, was chargesheeted and departmental inquiry was held against him. A District Attorney, who was a legal practitioner, was appointed as Presenting Officer by the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Disciplinary Authority. Respondent engaged services of a lawyer to defend him in the proceedings. He paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to his lawyer as fee. He made a representation for the refund of the amount of fee. His representation was rejected. Then he filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking reimbursement of the aforesaid amount of money paid by him to a lawyer, as professional fee. His prayer was opposed by the writ petitioner, on the ground that permission had not been obtained by the respondent to engage a legal practitioner and that as per Rules he could not have engaged a legal practitioner, without obtaining permission from Disciplinary Authority. 4. The relevant Rule is quoted in a representation of the respondent, available at Page-32. As per this Rule when the Disciplinary Authority appoints a Presenting Officer, who is a legal practitioner, the delinquent government servant may also engage a legal practitioner to defend him. Permission of the Government to engage a legal practitioner is required only when the Disciplinary Authority has not engaged a legal practitioner, but the delinquent government servant intends to avail of the services of a legal practitioner to defend himself. So, the objection raised by the writ petitioner is not sustainable. 5. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director BCG Vaccine Laboratory, Madras versus S. Pandian and Others, 1996(8) SLR 168 that expenses incurred by a delinquent government servant, on defending himself, in departmental …3… proceedings, are required to be reimbursed to such government servant. 6. In view of the abovestated position, we see no merit in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Writ petition stands disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. November 4, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.