IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5692 of 2008 Between: Smt N.V.Sita Kumari W/o.Varadarajulu Hindu R/o.AAI Colony Begumpet Airport Hyd ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Ship Degin and Research Centre Rep.by its Director Department of Shopping Gandhigam, Visakhapatnam-53005 2 MN Aruna Lata Williams Deputy Manager(Purchase) Hindusthan Shipyard Vizag. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of declaring the proceedings Ref EO/NSDRC/003 DT 26-2-2008 of the 2nd respondent herein declining to accord permission to the petitioner to engage an Advocate as Defense Assistant in the domestic enquiry to be held against the petitioner charge Sheet bearing NSDRC/1639/421 dt.20-7-2007 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary illegal capricious and violative of fundamental rights guraranteed under constitution of India apart from principles of Natural justice and Fair Play and consequently direct the respondents herein to accord permission to petitioner to engage an advocate as Defence Assistant to defend her case in the Domestic inquiry before the 2nd respondent herein. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator in the first respondent organization. A charge sheet, dated 20.07.2007, was issued to her alleging that she remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions. The petitioner submitted her explanation and not being satisfied with the same, the first respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer, the second respondent, to conduct domestic enquiry. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 22.02.2008, before the second respondent with a request to permit her to engage the services of a counsel in the domestic enquiry. The request of the petitioner was turned down by the second respondent, through an order, dated 26.02.2008. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to engage a Legal Practitioner to defend herself in the domestic enquiry. Admittedly, the Service Rules do not provide for such a facility. I n NATIONAL SEEDS CORPORATION LIMITED v. K.V.RAMA REDDY [1], the Supreme Court held that unless the Rules confer a right upon an employee to engage the services of Legal Practitioner in domestic enquiry, he cannot insist on such permission. It was further held that even when the Rules are silent, much would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the concluding portion of the judgment, sufficient indication is given as to the circumstances under which the permission to engage the services of a Legal Practitioner can be granted. In the instant case, the charges are not technical in nature nor any complex factual situation is prevalent. The charge is only as to the unauthorized absence of the petitioner, which is solely within her knowledge. It hardly needs any technical evaluation or presentation. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. The second respondent shall defer the further steps in the enquiry by three (3) weeks from today to enable the petitioner to make necessary preparation. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 18.03.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} [1] (2006) 11 SCC 645