IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 6646 of 2008 Between: Palturi Veera Venkata Surya Bhaskar S/o.Pattabhiramayya Hindu R/o.D.No.12-3-32/3 Seshayyametta Rajahmundry E.G Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Dist & Session Judge E.G Dist Rajahmundry 2 Principal Senior Civil Judge Rajahmundry E.G Dist .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1to 2 to permit the petitioner to engage and advocate/legal practitioner in the Departmental enquiry/proceedings of the Hon'ble Dist Judge Cum Disciplinary Authority dt.25-6-2007 in Dis No.4818 dt.29-6-2007 of E.G Dist and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondents: (SC FOR APHC)D.V.SITHARAM MURTHY The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6646 of 2008 ORDER: (Per VVSRJ) The petitioner is working as a Typist in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, second respondent herein. A disciplinary enquiry is initiated against him on an allegation that he misbehaved with Smt.Paparaju Sirisha, Stenographer working in the same Court. The Central Nazir is appointed as the Presenting Officer in the enquiry whereas learned Principal Junior Civil Judge is nominated as the Enquiry Officer. During the enquiry, the petitioner made an application to the Enquiry Officer requesting to permit him to engage services of a lawyer to present his case on 20.02.2008. Vide endorsement, dated 20.02.2008, the request was denied, aggrieved by which the petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a Mandamus to the respondents to permit him to engage the services of a lawyer. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised only submission that when a delinquent employee makes a request seeking permission to engage services of a lawyer to present his case before the Enquiry Officer, appropriate authority to take decision thereon is the Disciplinary Authority and not the Enquiry Officer. Rule 20(5)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, would lend support to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. As a normal rule, every delinquent employee facing the enquiry is entitled to take the assistance of any other Government servant. In case he wants to engage a retired Government servant or a legal practitioner, permission can be accorded only by the Disciplinary Authority i.e., in this case, first respondent, namely, the District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry. As the request was rejected by the Enquiry Officer, without referring the same to first respondent, the same cannot be sustained. For the above reasons, without expressing any opinion on the right or entitlement of the petitioner to engage the services of a lawyer in the enquiry against him, order of the Enquiry Officer dated 22.02.2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted to first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner to permit him to engage services of a lawyer. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09th April, 2008 _______________ (C.V. RAMULU, J) Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o) GHN To 1 Dist & Session Judge E.G Dist Rajahmundry 2 Principal Senior Civil Judge Rajahmundry E.G Dist 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}