1 2025:CGHC:34710 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7868 of 2025 1 - Vimal Kose W/o. Shri Lallu B, Aged About 42 Years Trade Head Constable 72/53 (Mt) Vehicle Driver, City Kotwali Kawardha, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Finance Mantralay, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Superintendent Of Police, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer Police, Dongargaon (Enquiry Officer) District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. P. Kale, Addl. Advocate General along with Ms. Smita Jha, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 27-05-2025 (Annexure P-3) and 06-06-2025 (Annexure P-4) and claimed the following relief in the writ petition:- SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.07.29 12:32:11 +0530 2 (i) To call for records for kind perusal. (ii) To quash the impugned order dated 27.05.2025 (annexure P/3) and 06.06.2025 (annexure P/4). (iii) To direct respondent No. 2 and 3 to permit petitioner to engage defense assistant of his choice. (iv) To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Head Constable (vehicle driver) at Police Station, Kotwali, Kabirdham. A disciplinary proceeding by way of Departmental Enquiry No. 04/2025 has been started against the petitioner on certain allegations, and the Sub Divisional Officer (Police), Dongargaon, is appointed as enquiry officer. During the enquiry, the petitioner has given his choice of engaging Mr. Virendra Kumar Sinha to be his defence assistant in the departmental enquiry, vide his communication dated 10-05-2025. The enquiry officer, through their communication dated 27-05-2025, refused to permit Mr. Virendra Kumar Sinha, as the defence assistant of the petitioner, in the departmental enquiry on the ground that he already represented the delinquent employees in more than 5 cases of departmental enquiry and as per Rule 14(18) {correct provision is Rule 14(8)}, of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, (in short “CCA Rules, 1966”) and asked him to produce any other name of his defence Assistant within 3 days from the date of receipt of the communication. The petitioner made his representation before the Supdt. of Police, Rajnandgaon/Disciplinary Authority, against the communication dated 27-05-2025 issued by the enquiry officer. The Supdt. of Police/Disciplinary Authority has also directed the petitioner to engage any other person as his defence Assistant and has not permitted Mr. Virendra Kumar Sinha as his defence Assistant because he is representing the delinquent employees in more than 5 cases of departmental enquiry. Challenging the action of the Disciplinary Authority and Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Rule 14 of the CCA Rules 1966 does not create any bar that the defence assistant of the delinquent employee should not represent him if he is representing the employee in more than 5 cases. There should be no limit on the number of cases for a defence assistant. The impugned communication/order is arbitrary and against the applicable Rules. Rule 14(8) of the CCA Rules, 1966, does not prohibit the petitioner from appointing his defence assistant who is representing the delinquent employees in more than 5 cases of departmental enquiry. The authorities have misconstrued the provisions of the Rules and passed the impugned communications. He would refer to the provision of Rule 14(8) of the Rules of 1966 and prayed for quashing of the impugned communications dated 27-05-2025 (Annexure P-3) and 06-06- 2025 (Annexure P-4). 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that there is no illegality in the impugned communications. To avoid any complications and controversy, and also to avoid any delay in the departmental enquiry, the said communications have been made by the authorities. He would further submit that though Rule 14(8) of the Rules of 1966 does not provide any number of cases of departmental enquiry, to speed the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the authorities have exercised their discretion and issued the communications. Therefore, the impugned communications are justified, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The petitioner, who is a delinquent employee, is facing a departmental enquiry in which he has asked to appoint his defence assistant. He proposed the name of Mr. Virendra Kumar Sinha as his defence assistant, but the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority have rejected his prayer 4 and denied to give permission to appoint him as his defence assistant on the ground that Mr. Virendra Kumar Sinha is already representing the delinquent employees in more than 5 cases of departmental enquiry. Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966 provides a procedure for imposing a penalty, and Sub-rule 8 of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966 is relevant and necessary to be reproduced herein below, which reads as under:- Rule 14 (8):- The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner, or the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. 7. It is not disputed by the parties that the CCA Rules of 1966 is applicable to the disciplinary proceeding against the police officials. Even otherwise, in the matter of “State of Chhattisgarh v. Suresh Kumar Dhruv” decided on 16- 10-2019, by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 393 of 2019, it has been held that CCA Rules of 1966 are applicable in the disciplinary proceeding against the police personnel. 8. Although the impugned communication dated 27-05-2025 bears with the provisions of Rule 14(18) of CCA Rules, 1966, but from perusal of the Rules, it appears that there is a typographical error in the provisions and Rule 14(8) is applicable in the case. To avoid the controversy, the rule 14(18) of the CCA Rules of 1966 is reproduced hereinbelow:- Rule 14(18)- The inquiring authority may, after the Government servant closes his case and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence fo the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. 9. There is no limitation on representing the number of cases of departmental enquiry by the defence assistant of the delinquent employees as provided in Rule 14(8) or even in Rule 14(18) of the CCA Rules, 1966. Thus, the impugned communications dated 27-05-2025 and 06-06-2025, denying the 5 petitioner to appoint Mr. Virendra Kumar Sinha as his defence assistant, appear to be incorrect, and prejudice appears to have been caused to such employee. 10. The rules of principles of natural justice require that a party must be given the proper opportunity to defend their case. The delinquent employees have their right to appoint their defence assistant as per their choice, of course, subject to the provisions of the relevant rules. From perusal of the entire provisions of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules of 1966, there is no restriction on the number of cases in which he is representing as the defence assistant of the delinquent employees. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned communications dated 27-05-2025 (Annexure P-3) and 06-06-2025 (Annexure P-4) are liable to be and hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be permitted to appoint any person of his choice as his defence assistant, under the applicable rules, irrespective of the number of cases of departmental enquiry in which such person is representing the delinquent employee. The petitioner may also appoint Mr. Virendra Kumar Sinha as his defence assistant, under the applicable rules, subject to other impediment, if any. 12. Needless to mention that the authorities concerned, however, would take necessary steps ensuring that the said defence assistant does not create a situation wherein smooth conducting of the departmental enquiry affects adversely. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. 14. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika