Under Rule 14(8), the Disciplinary Authority—not the Enquiry Officer—must decide requests for Defence Assistance.

The petitioner, a Junior Supply Officer posted in the Office of the Collector (Food), Gwalior, was served with a departmental charge-sheet dated 14 October 2025.

During the enquiry, the petitioner applied on 9 February 2026 for permission to engage Shri Kalluram Jain, a retired Food and Assistant Supply Officer, as her Defence Assistant. The Enquiry Officer rejected the request on the ground that Shri Jain was already acting as Defence Assistant in five other disciplinary cases. The petitioner’s subsequent appeal/representation was also rejected by the Enquiry Officer rather than by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner accordingly challenged the orders and sought permission to engage her chosen Defence Assistant under Rule 14(8) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

Whether the petitioner’s request for appointment of a Defence Assistant under Rule 14(8) of the M.P. CCA Rules, 1966 was required to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority rather than the Enquiry Officer

Whether the request could be rejected solely on the ground that the proposed Defence Assistant was already assisting in five other disciplinary proceedings

Whether further departmental-enquiry proceedings should remain stayed until the Disciplinary Authority decided the petitioner’s request

The Court applied Rule 14(8) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which permits a Government servant to take the assistance of another Government servant in presenting the case, while restricting engagement of a legal practitioner unless the Presenting Officer is a legal practitioner or the Disciplinary Authority permits such engagement having regard to the circumstances of the case.

The Court further relied on the Division Bench decision in Tomesh Maneshwer v. Manniya M.P. Uccha Nyayalaya and Others, W.P. No.12071 of 2022, order dated 12 January 2023, which recognised the entitlement to seek Defence Assistance under Rule 14(8).

The Court found that the petitioner’s request had not been considered by the competent authority contemplated under Rule 14(8). Although the petitioner had approached the Disciplinary Authority, the request was again rejected by the Enquiry Officer, and the State fairly conceded this procedural defect.

Since the Disciplinary Authority was competent to determine the request, the Enquiry Officer could not finally dispose of the petitioner’s representation. The Court further held that the request could not be rejected merely because Shri Kalluram Jain was already assisting in five other disciplinary cases or was cross-examining witnesses in those matters. The Disciplinary Authority was therefore directed to reconsider the application strictly in accordance with Rule 14(8).

The request was not to be rejected solely on the ground that Shri Jain was already acting as Defence Assistant in five other cases. Until the Disciplinary Authority rendered its decision, further proceedings in the departmental enquiry were stayed.