The denial of the right to be represented by a Defence Representative violated the principle of natural justice, causing prejudice and vitiating the departmental proceeding and the imposed penalty.

Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated June 7, 1999 (Annexure-29) passed by the disciplinary authority whereby, petitioner has been visited with the penalty of removal, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated August 30, 2001 (Annexure-32) whereby, the appellate authority had set aside the order of removal and passed order for re-appointment of the petitioner in Clerical grade with initial pay scale.

2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager of Sahi Minapur Branch of the respondent, Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, by memo dated November 12, 1997 (Annexure-1) explanation was called from him for his unauthorised absence and other misconduct. Petitioner did not submit any reply and by memorandum dated February 19, 1998 (Annexure-2) the respondent- Bank decided to hold departmental enquiry against him and served the memo of charge containing two charges. According to the memo of charge petitioner is in the habit of remaining, unauthorisedly absent from his duty and did not discharge his duties, even on days he was present. Later on, by letter dated February 23, 1998 (Annexure-3) one Mr. A.P. Choudhary was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. Petitioner filed application for the change of the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority by order dated May 28, 1998 (Annexure-4) changed the Inquiry Officer and appointed Mr. R.S. Lal, Senior Manager as the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer gave notice to the petitioner about the date fixed for the enquiry and at the same time requested the petitioner to nominate the Defence Representative, if any. Petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Officer on June 22, 1998 and the inquiry was adjourned to October 6, 1998. On October 6, 1998, the date fixed for enquiry, petitioner filed application before the Inquiry Officer nominating Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, Branch Manager (suspended), who also happened to be the General Secretary of the Banks Staff Union, as his Defence Representative. Petitioner also produced before the Inquiry Officer his consent letter and accordingly, requested him to permit representation by the said Defence Representative. The Inquiry Officer adjourned the enquiry to October 10, 1998 directing the (Presenting Officer to take instruction as to whether a suspended employee can be permitted to act as a Defence Representative. On October 10, 1998, the Presenting Officer brought to the notice of the Inquiry Officer the letter dated October 9, 1998 of the Management and contended that a suspended or charge-sheeted Officer cannot be allowed to act as a Defence Representative. Taking note of the said plea of the Presenting Officer the Inquiry Officer by order dated October 10, 1998 rejected the prayer of the petitioner seeking permission to be represented by aforesaid Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, holding that a charge-sheeted or a suspended Officer cannot act as a Defence Representative. Petitioner reiterated before the Inquiry officer for permitting said Mr. Singh as a Defence Representative referring to various rules and decisions of the Court. Taking note of the said submission the inquiry Officer adjourned the Enquiry to October 24, 1998 directing the Presenting Officer to take further instruction from the Management. On October 24, 1998 the Presenting Officer took the stand that allowing Defence Assistant in the departmental proceeding is within the discretion of the Bank and in the light of the instruction of the NABARD, a suspended employee cannot be allowed to function as the Defence Representative. The Inquiry Officer considered the plea of the petitioner and the Presenting officer and by order dated October 24, 1998 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for appointment of Mr. Sudhi