- (1.) The challenge in the present petition is to the charge sheet dated 17.7.2009 (Annexure P/10) issued by respondent No. 1 and all proceedings emanating therefrom including order dated 13.8.2009 (Annexure P/15) passed by the Enquiry Officer-respondent No. 2 whereby request of the petitioner for engaging a counsel or to be represented through some retired official of the department was declined. Challenge is also laid to the order of suspension dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure P/9) and for issuance of a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service. Counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that order dated 14.7.2009 (Annexure P/9) is no longer in force and the petitioner has been reinstated in service and transferred to another District.
(2.) The challenge is thus to the charge sheet whereby the petitioner was charged by the then District and Sessions Judge, Fatehabad as many as on five counts including the count that his retention in service is no longer warranted and which was subject matter of enquiry proceedings by respondent No. 2. At that stage the application was filed by the petitioner that he is matriculate and remains ill and unable to face the present enquiry on his own. He, accordingly, prayed that permission may be granted to engage an Advocate who could represent him in the enquiry. The application was dismissed by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that no intricate question of law and fact was involved which warranted any expert legal assistance and the department also had not engaged any lawyer and the Superintendent G-II was not a legal expert. It was also noticed that the petitioner employee was appointed in the year 1996 and had experience of 13 years at that point of time. On dismissal of the said application, immediately another application was filed by the petitioner whereby prayer was made for permitting him to be represented by some retired official of Court of law which was also dismissed on the same ground and the case was fixed for evidence of the department. Resultantly, the present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as per Rule 7 Sub Clause 5 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), if the charge or charges are likely to result in the dismissal of the person from service of the Government, such person may with the sanction of the Enquiry Officer be represented by counsel. Accordingly, it is submitted that since there was a charge whereby the petitioner could be dismissed from service, the Enquiry Officer was not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner.;