IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17674 of 2007 Between: M.V.V. Subramanayam, S/o.M.V.V. Pala Shankaram, District Court, Eluru,R/o. Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Judge, West Godavari At Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Cum Enquiry Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to allow the petitioner to take the assistance of an Advocate in the enquiry initiated by the first respondent against the Petitioner in D.E.6/2007 by declaring the proceedings of the first respondent in rejecting the plea of the Petitioner to take the assistance of an Advocate in the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in his proceedings bearing D.lE.No. 6/2007 dt. 7-7-2007 and confirming the same in his further proceedings dt. 6-8-2007 as illegal and hence be pleased to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR APHC)D.V.SITHARAM MURTHY The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner to take the assistance of an Advocate in the enquiry initiated against him by the 1st respondent. The petitioner also seeks to declare the action of the 1st respondent in rejecting his plea to take the assistance of an Advocate in departmental enquiry as being illegal, arbitrary and to set aside the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. The facts stated are the petitioner who is stated to be working as Superintendent in the District Court, West Godavari District was issued with charge memo dated 17.5.2007 by framing certain charges against him under Rule 20 of A.P.C.S (Civil Conduct Appeal) Rules. After receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner filed his explanation to the charge memo. However, not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, the 1st respondent appointed the 2nd respondent as Enquiry Officer and also a Presenting Officer to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent had been proceeding with the enquiry against the petitioner. At that stage, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents seeking permission to allow him to take the assistance of an advocate to defend him in the enquiry as he is not well versed with the complexity of a departmental enquiries and procedures involved therein. His representation was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the Presenting Officer appointed to enquire into the matter was not a legal expert, aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. It is now brought to our notice by the learned counsel that the enquiry against the petitioner has been completed. In that view of the matter and also in view of the fact that the presenting officer is not a legal expert and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR,J Date:01.06.2009. NRG/GK HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.17674 OF 2007 DATE:01.06.2009.