A delinquent employee is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner in a domestic enquiry, especially when the employer is represented by legally trained persons.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

" ..... to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of certiorari by calling the records by declaring the action, things and deeds of respondents in terminating the petitioner from service by proceedings dtd. 24/11/2016 issued by the 3rd respondent which are illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and its Rules and against to the Memorandum of Settlement arrived between the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Banks' Association, Hyderabad and the Andhra Pradesh Bank Employees Federation/Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Banks employees Association on 7/7/2008, against to the directions of this Court in W.P.No.41141 of 2015 dtd. 20/7/2016 and also in violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to set aside the proceedings dtd. 24/11/2016 by re-instating the petitioner into service with all benefits including back wages and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 and Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined as Paid Secretary in P.A.C.S., Pedaparupudi, on 12/10/1984. Thereafter, he got promotion and he was posted as Special Category Assistant (Staff Assistant) in the K.D.C.C. Branch, G.Konduru, 6th respondent herein, on 18/1/2012. While so, an enquiry under Sec. 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was conducted on the affairs of the 6th respondent by the Enquiry Officer. On the basis of the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer dtd. 10/7/2012, the petitioner was kept under suspension vide proceedings dtd. 3/10/2012 by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, a charge memo dtd. 27/11/2012 was issued alleging that the petitioner, in connivance with one T.Murali Krishna, AM/Cashier, raised seven demand drafts worth Rs.8, 67, 000.00 and shown gross negligence in discharge of duties and misappropriated the funds of the bank to an extent of Rs.4, 33, 500.00.

i) The learned counsel would also submit that after receipt of the Enquiry Report, the 3rd respondent appointed one A. Sudhakara Rao, Advocate, as a Domestic Enquiry Officer by proceedings dtd. 15/1/2014 to enquire into the charges/allegations levelled against the petitioner. In the enquiry, the petitioner specifically pleaded that he did not commit any misappropriation of funds of the bank. More so, the Domestic Enquiry Officer did not permit the petitioner to engage an advocate on his behalf and also not provided a proper opportunity to defend his case. After completion of enquiry, the Domestic Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice dtd. 15/6/2015 to the petitioner to inflict a punishment of termination from service, for which the petitioner submitted an explanation dtd. 8/8/2015.

ii) The learned counsel would further submit that the 3rd respondent simply issued an order terminating the services of the petitioner from service on 12/10/2015 by accepting the domestic enquiry report. In the order of termination, it was mentioned that no written objections were filed, though the petitioner submitted a written explanation on 8/8/2015 itself. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41141 of 2015 before this Court. This Court allowed the writ petition by an order dtd. 20/7/2016 setting aside the order dtd. 12/10/2015 and directed the 3rd respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation dtd. 8/10/2016 to the