HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19101 OF 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a certiorari to call for the records relating to and connected with the proceedings in Rc.No.3/108/89/H3/08100 dated 19-06-2010 and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. 2. Under the impugned proceedings dated 19-06-2010, one B. Rajanna, Retired District Judge, has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is only a Secretarial Assistant in respondent No.1 organisation and apart from the fact that the charges are very trivial in nature and there is no necessity of appointing a retired Judicial Officer of the rank of District Judge for conducting an enquiry into such charges. 3. However, Rule 20(5)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short “ the CCA Rules”) reads as under: “Rule 20(5)(b): Where the Government Servant appears before the Disciplinary Authority and pleads not guilty to the charges or refuses or omits to plead, the Disciplinary Authority shall record the plea and obtain signature of the Government Servant thereon and may decide to hold the inquiry itself or if it considers necessary to do so appoint an Inquiring Authority for holding the inquiry into the charges and also appoint a Government Servant or a retired Government Servant or a legal practitioner as Presenting Officer to present the case in support of the articles of charge and adjourn the case to a date not exceeding five days.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that it is for respondent No.1 to decide whom to appoint and whom shall not be appointed. 5. Unless and until, it is pointed out that respondent No.1 has no such authority to appoint a retired District Judge as an Enquiry Officer, the proceedings cannot be interfered with in view of the fact that Rule 20(5)(b) of the CCA Rules itself contemplates appointment of any retired Government Servant or a Legal Officer etc., and, as such, petitioner cannot have any grievance for appointing a person such as retired District Judge for conducting an enquiry into the matter. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is difficult for the petitioner to face a retired Judicial Officer. 7. Under the above circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to engage an Advocate to defend himself in the enquiry. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J August 6, 2010. NOTE: Furnish copy of the order within two (2) days. (B/O) PV