( 1 ) RULE D. B.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and, hence, we proceed to decide the writ petition finally.

( 3 ) PETITIONER Subha Mukherjee joint UCO Bank as a Clerk on 13. 6. 1966. She was promoted as an Officer, Junior Management Scale-I on 1. 7. 1976. On 1. 7. 1983 she was promoted to the rank of Officer, Middle Management Scale-11. She is working as an Officer at Nehru Place Branch of the respondent in New Delhi. On 24. 1. 1994 she has been charge-sheeted as regards her conduct in the remittance dated 19. 2. 1990 in respect of the amount of Rs. 26,17,50,000. 00. The petitioner has denied and disputed the charges levelled against her by filing her reply on 3. 5. 1994. Thereafter, the appointing authority was pleased to proceed with a departmental proceeding against her and accordingly appointed an Enquiry Officer and one Shri P. K. Bandopadhyay as a Presenting Office in the said departmental proceeding. Petitioner had given an application -cum-letter on 24. 8. 1994 seeking permission to engage a legal practioner. Her application had been rejected by order dated 27. 8. 94 and, therefore, she has come in writ jurisdiction before this Court. It is her contention that the order rejecting her prayer for being represented by a legal practioner is illegal as well as against the principles of natural justice. She has, therefore, prayed for setting aside of the said order and to allow her to engage a legal practioner in the sa?d disciplinary proceedings.

( 4 ) THE claim of the petitioner is resisted by the respondent bank by filing the counter affidavit. It is contended on behalf of the bank that the Presenting Officer who is to represent the bank in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is neither an advocate nor a legally trained person and there is no involvement of any complicated questions of law or fact in the proceedings in question and that it pertains to a routine normal banking transaction. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 7 of Bank Regulations, the petitioner is not entitled to engage a legal practioner when the Presenting Officer on behalf of the Bank is not a legal practioner. it is, therefore, contended that this petition be dismissed with costs.

( 5 ) PETITIONER has produced the copy of UCO Bank Regulations pertaining to the dispute in question. Regulation No. 7 is the relevant regulation and it reads as under:

"the Officer-employee may take the assistance of any other officer employee but may not engage a legal practioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practioner or the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits. "

IF the above provisions of Regulation 7 are considered, then it would be quite clear that the employee of the bank is not as of right entitled to engage a legal practitioner in the disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, in the instant case the bank has not engaged any legal practitioner as a Presenting Officer. , When the employer Bank is not being represented by any legal practitioner in the said disciplinary proceedings the petitioner cannot claim as of right for being represented by a legal practitioner in the said proceedings.

( 6 ) NO doubt if the above provisions of Regulation 7 are considered then il would be quite clear that a discretion lies with the disciplinary authority for permitting the employee to be represented by a legal practioner having regard to the circumstances of the case. Therefore, it is necessary to see as to what is the charge against the present petitioner. The charge against the petitioner reads as under:

ARTICLES of Charge Smt. Subha Mookherjee, is hereby charged as under for committing serious irregularities in February/march, 1990 while functioning as an officer in Parliament Street Branch of the Bank:

"1 ). She, in a very negligent and reckless manner, and grossly violating the Bank s rules and procedures,