1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 217 OF 2009 Vivekanand S/o. Kashinath Swami R/o. 34, Itkheda, Paithan Road, Opp. Nath Seeds, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad and others. ....Respondents. Shri. S.B. Gastagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. K.M. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri. K.J. Ghute-Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 2. Shri. D.J. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No. 4. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, & R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 29th JUNE, 2009 ORAL ORDER : [ PER P.V. HARDAS, J. ] 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner, who is a delinquent facing a domestic inquiry on charges of misconduct. The petitioner, by this petition, prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent No. 5 who has been appointed as the 2 Inquiry Officer/Presiding Officer by the respondent in the said inquiry. The petitioner also prays for issuance of writ of mandamus for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 29.11.2008 and 6.12.2008 passed by the Inquiry Officer and also prays for directing respondent Nos. 3 and 5 to permit the petitioner to engage advocate on his behalf in the departmental inquiry initiated against him. 2. This is a petition, which is filed questioning the orders passed by the Inquiry Officer in the interlocutory stage of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the present petitioner. The petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 46 (4)(c). The Rule as is typed and sworn in the petition reads that :- The employee may take assistance of any other employee to represent the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner unless the Presiding Officer is a legal practitioner or the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of permits. 3. The rule as is appearing in the petition led the Court to draw inference that if the management appointed an advocate as Presiding Officer, the delinquent automatically would be conferred with the rights of being represented by a legal practitioner. On notice of this petition being issued to respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and it is pointed out to the Court that this rule is misquoted by the 3 petitioner in this writ petition. The Rule 46 (4) (c) permits the employee to be represented by legal practitioner only in the event, the management appoints a legal practitioner as a Presenting Officer and not as a Presiding Officer. In the present case, the management has appointed respondent No. 5 as a Presiding Officer/ Inquiry Officer. By virtue of said Rule 46(4) (c) the employee is not conferred with any right to be represent by an advocate. 4. Since the inquiry is pending, we refrain from expressing any opinion in this behalf. Whatever grounds the petitioner has taken in respect of breach of principle of natural justice, would be ground available for the petitioner at the conclusion of the inquiry. In the light of that therefore, we see no merit in this writ petition and same is therefore, summarily dismissed. We clarify that dismissal of this writ petition would not come in the way of the petitioner in agitating this ground and other grounds in the event, the report of Inquiry Officer is adverse to the petitioner. 5. Petition is dismissed with the liberty as aforestated. [ R.K.DESHPANDE, J. ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J. ] ssc/wp217.09