submitted to the Disciplinary Authority only on 10.09.2005, the fact remains that the inquiry proceedings were assailed on this ground well before passing of the impugned removal order which was based on this inquiry report. It is thus evident that it is the respondents’ own case that this application submitted by the co-delinquent was available with the Disciplinary Authority before the removal order was passed on 12.10.2005. 16. What further emerges is that it is the respondents’ own stand that on 16.09.2005, directions had been issued that every delinquent employee facing an inquiry would be entitled to ask for services of a defence assistant. The respondents have, however, urged that the inquiry had already been completed before the guidelines providing for defence assistant were issued on 16.09.2005. We, however, find no merit in this plea as we are of the view that once the Disciplinary Authority was made aware that the inquiry has been conducted without permitting the petitioner and HC Umed Singh to engage a defence assistant, appropriate orders for holding of de-novo inquiry ought to have been issued. Once a specific grievance regarding denial of the opportunity to engage a defence assistant had been raised before the penalty order of removal from service was passed, the respondents could not shy away from the duty cast on them vide circular dated 16.09.2005.
