- (1.) The petitioner, facing disciplinary proceedings on the charge of embezzlement, seeks interference of this Court with an order dated October 23, 2013 passed by his disciplinary authority refusing his prayer for lawyer's assistance at the enquiry which has commenced pursuant to the chargesheet dated February 27, 2013. This is the second round of litigation between the parties in connection with the disciplinary proceedings. The first round of litigation stood terminated by an order dated September 23, 2013 passed by me. I have been informed at the hearing that the grievance of the petitioner with regard to supply of documents has been attended to and that he has no further reason to complain on such score. However, the petitioner in course of this writ petition has persisted with his grievance that he has not been able to locate a co-employee or a retired employee to assist him at the enquiry and, therefore, the order refusing lawyer's assistance would have the effect of denying him reasonable opportunity to defend the charges.
(2.) It appears that availing of the opportunity granted by the order dated September 23, 2013, the petitioner had submitted a representation on the following day before the disciplinary authority raising, inter alia, the following: 2. That as per the IRCTC (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 2003 for engagement of defence helper firstly I have approached to my known colleagues of my zone of service for giving me assistance in the disciplinary proceeding, but even after approaching them no one has come forward to stand beside me as my defence helper in the proceeding, as nobody has such an experience in the matter involving law and facts. More so, no one is interested to stand against the organization in my support. 3. That finding no other choice I tried to find out any retired employee of the Corporation as may defence helper, but I did not find out any such person. I have no known retired person, to whom I can approach for rendering me assistance in the disciplinary proceeding in my support, who has requisite knowledge and legal expertise in conducting disciplinary proceedings. 4. That one person I have found earlier as my defence helper. Accordingly I prayed for engaging him as my defence helper, but my said prayer has not been allowed as the said person is not a retired employee of IRCTC. 5. That in this circumstances I am unable to find out any other person as my defence helper as per our said rule. 6. That the said rule provides for engagement of a legal practitioner for my assistance in the disciplinary proceeding if the disciplinary authority permits so. 7. That in this present case I do not find any employee from my service zone or any retired person as per the said rule. Accordingly I am defence less in the disciplinary proceeding inasmuch as no one is here for my assistance and I have no knowledge and idea of conducting disciplinary proceeding, which involves complicated matters of law and fact like the present one.
(3.) The order impugned records as follows: I have meticulously examined your above representation once again. The Major Penalty charge sheet was served on you in conformity with the IRCTC (D & A) Rules, 2003 & I find that there is no legal complications in the matter as pointed out by you. IRCTC/EZ is having more than 450 staff, More so, a good number of employees who were working as deemed deputationist from railways and retired from service are available. Therefore, your contention that you could not find any such employee for engagement as defence helper is not acceptable to me. Hence, the decision conveyed in my earlier letter dated 03.10.2013 needs no revision.;