The Gujarat High Court in the case Divyesh Govindbhai Kunvariya v. State of Gujarat observed and has held that a delinquent employee is being entitled to engage a counsel for his defence where the inquiry officer himself being a legal expert. The bench headed by Justice A.S. Supehia while allowing the plea made by one such employee observed that since the Inquiry Officer himself is a City Civil Judge and expert in the legal proceedings, the assistant of a legal practitioner for defending the case of the petitioner cannot be denied, It has been held by the Apex Court that if any person who possesses legal acumen is appointed as an inquiry officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee, who possesses legal acumen is appointed as an inquiry officer in an inquiry initiated against an employee and it will be unfair for the denial of a legal practitioner for the assistance in inquiry to the employee charged.
In the present case, the court was hearing a writ plea filed wherein challenging an order which denied the petitioner to engage an advocate for his defence in the inquiry. The inquiry has been initiated by the court following a complaint before Special Vigilance Officer and the Disciplinary Officer was the Principal Judge City Civil and the Sessions Court. At the Outset, an application has been filed by the petitioner requesting the permission to appoint an advocate to defend the proceedings, the court rejected the same. It has also been observed by the court that there being no absolute bar under Rule 9(5)(c) of the Gujarat Civil Services (the Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1971 in appointing of a legal practitioner by the delinquent in the disciplinary proceedings.
Therefore, the court referred the case Professor Ramesh Chandra v. University of Delhi, wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that where in an enquiry before a domestic tribunal the delinquent officer is pitted against a legally trained mind and if he seeks permission to appear through a legal practitioner the refusal for granting the said request would amount to denial of a reasonable request for defending himself and the same would violate the essential principles of natural justice. Further, the court also directed that the respondent authority to permit the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner for defending himself in the inquiry. The court shall give the name of such legal practitioner to the respondent no.2-Inquiry Officer within a period of 15 days. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer i.e. the respondent no.2 shall permit the advocate for representing the case of the petitioner in the departmental proceedings