Madhu Bharti vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3963 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  W.P.(C) No. 3621/2011 & CM No. 7575/2011(Stay)

%                                                5th September, 2013

MADHU BHARTI                                                 ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Petitioner in person.

                          VERSUS

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
                                                           ...... Respondents
                          Through:       Mr. Reeta Kaul, Adv. for R-1
                                         Mr. Anil Gera, Adv. for R-2 and 3.
                                         Mr. S.C.Meena, DEO Zone-27.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    Petitioner who is present before me states that she needs assistance of

a Defence Assistant for the purpose of conducting proceedings on her behalf

in the departmental proceedings. There is no bar in law for a person to have

a defence assistant. Of course, the defence assistant cannot be a lawyer in

the departmental proceedings however, surely any employee of the school,

in which the petitioner is working, can be appointed by the petitioner as a

defence assistant to assist her or to conduct the case on her behalf in the

WPC 3621/2011                                                                   Page 1 of 3
 departmental proceedings. Due representation is in fact a fundamental facet

of the principles of natural justice because some people may not be that

articulate enough or not that competent enough to represent themselves in

the departmental proceedings. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of

with the directions that though the petitioner cannot have any legal

practitioner as the defence assistant, however, she will be entitled to take any

person who is working in the respondent-school represented by respondent

nos. 2 and 3, to assist her or conduct her case in the departmental

proceedings.


2.     I do not think that any of the judgment which is cited on behalf of

respondent nos. 2 and 3 i.e Mrs. Meemansa Dixit Vs. Director of Education

& Ors. MANU/DE/9442/2006 and Samarth Shiksha Samiti (Regd.) Vs.

Directorate of Education & Anr. 180(2011) DLT 93 lay down law that a

person in the departmental proceedings is not entitled to a defence assistant.

Both judgments only state that a lawyer cannot become a defence assistant

on behalf of the charged employee in the departmental proceedings.

Therefore, the judgments relied upon on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3

do not help for contending that petitioner is not entitled to a defence

assistant.

WPC 3621/2011                                                                Page 2 of 3
 3.    Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that

petitioner will be entitled to engage a defence assistant as per rules and who

can be any of the employees of the school M/s S.D.Hari Mandir Girls Sr.

Sec. School, Deshraj Bhatia Marg, Nabi Karim, New Delhi-11005. Parties

are left to bear their own costs.




SEPTEMBER 05, 2013                           VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib