CWP-9290-2024 (O& M ) petitioner unde r the guise of compliance with t h e Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 is illusory and devoid of a n y real efficacy. In such circumstances, i t is argued that the petitioner i s effectively left without any representation, w hich frustrates the very object o f the Bipartite Settlement. 13. Counsel u rges that the allegations levelle d against the petitioner in the charge sheet dated 19.12.2017 are of a tec h nical and complex nature, involving serio u s charges of fraud, forgery, an d financial misappropriation. It is submitted t hat the inquiry requires scrutin y of voluminous documents, expert scrutin y of transactional records, a n d understanding of legal implications concerning forgery and criminal misconduct, matters which necessitate the assistance of a trained legal p rofessional. The petitioner, being without a n y legal expertise, cannot be ex p ected to conduct his defence meaningfully o r effectively. It is argued that de n ial of legal representation in such circumsta n ces violates the principles of na t ural justice. 14. It i s further submitted that con s idering the severity of the charges and the potential consequences, includ i ng termination from service, loss of liveliho o d, and irreparable harm to th e petitioner’s reputation and dignity, the rig h t to be heard through legal c o unsel assumes even greater significance. C o unsel emphasises that the Supreme Court has consistently held that in ca s es involving serious conseque n ces, the denial of adequate opportunity to d efend oneself amounts to denial of a fair hearing. 15. Co u nsel also relies upon the p rovisions of the Bipartite Agreement date d 10.04.2002, which confers dis c retion upon the Disciplinary Authority to p e rmit legal representation whe r e justified by the facts and
