HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.146 of 2008 Dated: January 22, 2008 Between: Smt. S.V.R. Lakshmi, W/o. Ram Bhadraiah, Aged 41 years, R/o.H.No.2-567, Modinabad, Near Telephone Exchange, Guntakal, Ananthapur District. … Petitioner And The Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, S.C. Railway, Guntakal Division, Guntakal, Ananthapur District, and others. … Respondents Order: The petitioner is a member of the Railway Protection Force. On the ground that she was unauthorizedly absent at different spells, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge sheet dated 22-08-2007 was issued to her under Section 9(1) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 (‘the Act’ for brevity) read with Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. In the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority appointed fourth respondent, Inspector, as enquiry officer. When the matter was pending consideration, the petitioner submitted representation dated 08-10- 2007 to the respondents to permit her to take the assistance of Mr. A. Peddanna, a Head Constable, in the proceedings. On the request of the petitioner, order dated 26-10-2007 was passed stating that administration has no authority to provide defence support to a charged employee and defence support has to be arranged by the delinquent employees, on their own. Further, instructions were also issued to cooperate with the enquiry officer for early completion of enquiry. While questioning the order dated 26-10-2007, petitioner also seeks change of the enquiry officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner dated 08-10-2007 is rejected without applying relevant Rules. It is submitted that the Rule applicable is Rule 153(8) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, as per which it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to appoint a defence assistant, who is a member of the force, to put his defence properly. Rule 153 (8) of the said Rules reads as follows: “The enrolled member charged shall not be allowed to bring in a legal practitioner at the proceedings but he may be allowed to take the assistance of any other member of the Force (hereinafter referred to as “friend”) where in the opinion of the Inquiry Officer may, at the request of the party charged, put his defence properly. Such “friend” must be a serving member of the Force of or below the rank of Sub-Inspector for the time being posted in the same division or the battalion where the proceedings are pending and not acting as a “friend” in any other proceedings pending anywhere. Such “friend” shall, however, not be allowed to address the Inquiry Officer nor to cross-examine the witnesses.” A reading of the aforesaid rule makes it clear that it is not obligatory on the part of the respondents to appoint a defence assistant for a delinquent employee. If the petitioner wants to take assistance of an officer, she can do so, which is permissible as per Rule 153(8) of the Rules. However, there is no obligation to arrange for a defence assistant to the petitioner from the respondents’ side. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 26-10-2007 and I also find no valid ground to issue directions to change the enquiry officer, as sought for. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. January 22, 2008 MRR