IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 2463 of 2007 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2411/2004 Dated 21/03/2007 ................................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ---------------------------------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. GROUP COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, GROUP HQ. HAKIMPET, HYDERABAD. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, D WING, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-19. 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL, SOUTH WESTERN SECTOR, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, RCFL COMPLEX, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI-400074. 5. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, HEADQUARTERS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- M.K.V.NAIR, S/O M.R.KESAVA KURUP, EX-INSPECTOR/EXE(NO.824390400), CISF, GROUP HEAD QUARTERS, HYDERABAD.(UNDER COMPULSORY RETIREMENT), R/AT HOUSE NO.5/16, SIVAKRIPA, KYLAS LANE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SRI.SURAJ.S THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.A.No.2463 of 2007 ======================== Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. Advocate Shri.M.R.Hariraj took notice for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, this writ appeal is finally heard and disposed of. 2. The appellants attack the direction of the learned single Judge giving option to the writ petitioner, who is the respondent herein, to decide to be represented by a lawyer at the time of hearing of a revision petition to be filed by him against Ext.P18 order of the Appellate Authority affirming Ext.P16 order of the Disciplinary Authority. Unless the rules permit, normally, a delinquent in a disciplinary proceeding cannot be allowed to be represented by a lawyer. But the learned counsel for the respondent points out that there are decisions of this Court and the Apex Court where legal representation was permitted when the charges involved complicated questions of fact and law. This WA 2463/07 -: 2 :- is one such case. On the other hand, the appellants pointed out that in the absence of any rules, enabling the petitioner to engage a lawyer, the direction of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. 2. Normally, the parties are governed by the rules governing disciplinary action. But in appropriate cases where issues involved are complicated, the court can issue directions permitting engagement of lawyers in disciplinary proceedings, especially at the enquiry stage. But no such direction issued has been brought to our notice when the matter is heard by the revisional authority. We notice that in this case there is no finding that the case involves complicated questions of facts or law. In the absence of any such finding, the direction cannot be sustained. Therefore, the direction permitting the petitioner to be represented by a lawyer is set aside. But he may request the Revisional Authority to allow him to appear through an authorised representative. If such a request is made, the Revisional Authority will consider the same before taking up the revision for final disposal. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the Revisional WA 2463/07 -: 3 :- Authority is directed to hear and dispose of the revision as early as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ appeal is disposed of as above. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 12/1