IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11063 of 2008(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BIJUMON A.P., S/O.PAPPACHAN AGED 34 YEARS, ARPC 5399 (U/S) A.R.CAMP KALLEKKAD, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT ARACKAL HOUSE POLLATHAI P.O., KALAVOOR VILLAGE AMBALAPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY SMT.ANNIE GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR. 4. E.K. UNNIKRISHNAN (ENQUIRY OFFICER) DEPUTY COMMANDANT OF POLICE DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).11063/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is facing disciplinary enquiry initiated pursuant to Ext.P2. The enquiry is governed by the provisions of Kerala Police Departmental Enquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1958. Petitioner sought for the help of a co-worker to conduct the enquiry on his behalf. This has been rejected under Ext.P11 by the second respondent. This is on the basis of Rule 6(8) of Part-II of K.P.D.I.P & Appeal Rules which reads as follows:- No person who is called upon to defend himself against the charges which form the subject matter of the inquiry against him shall be allowed to engage a counsel- provided that if a counsel is engaged on behalf of any Department of Government, the person against whom the charges are being inquired into shall be entitled to engage a counsel. W.P.(C).11063/2008 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prohibition under Rule 6(8) of the Rules is only against engaging a counsel and not engaging a co-worker. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that there is no permissive provision in the rules enabling a helper to attend the oral enquiry unlike in the case of an enquiry governed by the provisions of K.C.S. (C.C & A.) Rules. 3. It is clear that the prohibition under Rule 6(8) will apply in the case of the engagement of a counsel and not in the case of a helper as such. But, nevertheless the question remains as to whether there is any provision or rule which obliges the enquiring authority to necessarily afford the help of a co-worker to a delinquent. If permission is not granted, in given circumstances violation of natural justice may be inferred. That is a matter which will arise for consideration only in the course of the finalization of disciplinary proceedings. W.P.(C).11063/2008 3 In my view, the request made by the petitioner may be considered by the second respondent de hors Ext.P11. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for engaging the services of a co- worker to help him in the oral enquiry. The request may be considered without referring to Ext.P11. If on facts, the second respondent is of the view that permission need not be granted, then the reason for taking such decision may be indicated in the order. Such order shall be passed within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and enquiry shall be proceeded with only thereafter. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs