( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 29th july, 1992 passed in writpetition no. 22284 of 1991. The learned single judge has refused to stay the furtherproceedings in the enquiry and has only observed that the enquiry contemplated mayproceed but no action adverse to the interest of the petitioner-appellant shall be takenon the basis of the enquiry report without further orders from this court. When thisappeal came up for admission, we found that the hearing of the appeal would behearing of the writ petition itself; therefore we directed by our order dated 29th october,1992 that the writ petition no. 22284 of 1991 be posted along with this writappeal for final disposal. Accordingly, the writ petition has now been posted alongwith this appeal. We have heard both the sides.

( 2 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:" (A) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring regulation 6 (7) of the regulations, as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39-a of the constitution of india; (b) issue a writ ofcertiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the endorsement bearing reference no. Prs: 91-92:2018, dated 1-10-1991 issued by the 2nd respondent marked at annexurc-r as the same is arbitrary and unsustainable; (c) issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, prohibiting the respondents from holding any enquiry in pursuance of the charge-sheet no. Po:prs:91-92, dated 18th april, 1991 (annexure-b), as the respondents want to proceed with the enquiry, some of which the petitioner has already been exonerated and that no enquiry should be allowed to be held on account of the enormous delay; (d) pass an interim order staying the charge-sheet no. Po:prs:91-92, dated 18-4-1991 (annexure-g) and prohibiting the respondents from holding the enquiry in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 18-4-1991 (annexure-g) during the pendency of this writ petition; and (e) direct the contesting respondents to pay the petitioner the costs of this writ petition and grant such other relief or reliefs as this hon'ble court may be pleased to grant in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. "we are of the view that it is not necessary to consider All these prayers because the main grievance of the petitioner-appellant is that he has not been permitted to engage a legal practitioner to defend his case. If this relief the petitioner is entitled to secure, the validity of regulation 6 (7) of the central bank of India officer employees' (discipline and appeal) regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'regulations') need not be considered. Similarly, the prayer no. (c) also need not be considered because it is open to the petitioner to put forth his say in that regard before the inquiring authority as well as before the disciplinary authority. Hence, we confine our decision to the relief sought for by the petitioner that he should be permitted to engage a legal practitioner for defending his case. The disciplinary authority has refused to grant the permission to engage a legal practitioner under regulation 6 (7) of the regulations, on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no such permission need be granted because the presenting officer is also not legally trained and he is without any legal attainment.

( 3 ) REGULATION 6 (7) of the regulations reads thus:"6 (7 ). The officer-employee may take the assistance of any other officer employee but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner or the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits. "from the aforesaid regulation, it is clear that a discretion is vested in the disciplinary authority to grant or not to grant the permission having regard to the circumstances of the case. T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document