The refusal to allow legal representation in a disciplinary enquiry, particularly when the presenting officer is legally trained, violates natural justice and renders the proceedings invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The application for restoration, application for condonation of delay and the writ petition have been taken up for consideration together.

2. Since the writ petition itself was taken up for consideration and extensively heard, I am of the view that the writ petition should be disposed of on merits. Having regard to the above and having heard the learned advocates and having considered the explanation given by the petitioner, the delay in filing the restoration application praying for recall of the order dated 11th April, 2016, is condoned and upon being satisfied that the petitioner has been able to sufficiently explain the reasons for non-appearance on 11th April, 2016, when the writ petition was dismissed for default, the order dated 11th April, 2016 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original file and number. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2022 and CAN 3 of 2022 are disposed of.

WPA 26923 of 2006

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the show-cause notice dated 18th May, 2002, the Articles of Charge dated 19th August, 2002, the enquiry report dated 11th January, 2003, the Final Order dated 26th March, 2003 and the Appellate Order dated 11th August, 2006.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the Union Bank of India (hereinafter, the “respondent bank”) and by dint of his sincerity, devotion and perseverance had risen to the rank of the Assistant Manager. Unfortunately, by an order dated 27th December, 2001, the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect. Following the aforesaid, he was issued a show-cause notice on 18th May, 2002 alleging of his involvement in misappropriation and embezzlement of the respondent bank’s finances and utilizing the same for his personal use. The petitioner had duly responded to the said show-cause. The respondent bank, however, having found the said explanation to be neither convincing nor satisfactory, by a communication in writing dated 19th August, 2002 had served upon the petitioner the Articles of Charge and had called upon him to submit written statement of defence. Particulars of the Articles of Charge as leveled against the petitioner are extracted hereinbelow:

“1. Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence.

2. Doing acts unbecoming of an Officer employee.

3. He acted otherwise than in his best judgment in the performance of his official duties.

The show cause memorandum No.NRO:KOL:DP:2710 dated 18th May 2002 will form Statement of Allegations to this Articles of Charge ”

3. Following the aforesaid, by an office order dated 14th September, 2002, the Disciplinary Authority being the Chief Manager appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. In the interregnum, the petitioner had filed a departmental appeal against the order of suspension. Since, the same was kept pending, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, which was registered as W.P. No. 11667 (W) of 2002. On contest, the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 27th August 2002, by directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal positively within ten days with a further direction on the disciplinary authority to complete the disciplinary proceeding wit