The right to legal representation in disciplinary proceedings is governed by specific regulations, and denial of such representation does not automatically constitute a violation of natural justice if the employee is given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

JUDGMENT

VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

This intra court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner challenging the order dtd. 28/2/2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4924/2009.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Brief facts of the case as revealed from the records which would be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are, the appellant had joined the services of the respondent-Bank as Officer Grade-II in 1978 and he was later promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale-III in November 1988. When he was working as the Branch Manager at Trivandrum, he was deputed to Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'ABFSL') which is wholly a subsidiary of respondent no.1-Bank as its Senior Vice- President. While he was working in ABFSL, a criminal case was registered against M/s. Fairgrowth Financial Services Limited. The appellant was examined in the said case as a witness. Since he allegedly refused to give a statement against the Officers of the Bank as requested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which was investigating the case, a false criminal case was allegedly registered against him and the CBI took the appellant into custody on 1/12/1992.

4. The respondent-Bank, thereafter, on 4/12/1992 passed an order of suspension against the appellant and subsequently a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him. A charge sheet levelling two charges was served on the appellant and one Sri P.M.Rangasami, Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Sri G.David Jayaprakash, an employee of the Bank was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Since the Presenting Officer was a Law Degree holder who was trained in handling disciplinary proceedings, the appellant had sought the assistance of an advocate and the said request was rejected by the Disciplinary Authority. The same was questioned by the appellant in W.P.No.33389/1994 which was allowed by this Court with a direction to re-consider the request of the appellant for providing the legal assistance. However, the Disciplinary Authority, thereafter, rejected the appellant's prayer for providing legal assistance on the ground that it had changed the Presenting Officer. The appellant, thereafter, had made a request to take the assistance of one R.Kalyanaraman who was working as an Officer of the Bank as Defence Assistant. The said request was also rejected by the Disciplinary Authority. The appellant, thereafter, participated in the disciplinary proceedings and also examined R.Kalyanaraman as defence witness.

5. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter, submitted a report on 22/12/1998 holding that the charges levelled against the appellant were not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the same and issued a second show cause notice to the appellant on 13/6/2000. The appellant had submitted a detailed reply to the said show cause notice on 26/6/2000. The Disciplinary Authority not satisfied with the said reply, vide order dtd. 21/10/2000 dismissed the appellant from service and being aggrieved by the same, the appellant had preferred writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.35887/2000 which was dismissed by this Court with liberty to the appellant to avail the alternative remedy of appeal. Accordingly, the appellant had filed an appeal on 24/11/2000 which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 12/4/2001. Challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, the appellant had filed W.P.No.21647/2001 before this Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dtd. 21/7/2008 and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal. The Appellate Authority on 25/10/2008 once again passed a fresh order dismissing the appeal. The appellant, therefore, had preferred W.P.No.4924/2009 before this Court challenging the orders passed by the Disciplinary Au