The appointment of a legal practitioner as the Presenting Officer in a departmental enquiry is not illegal and does not violate the principles of natural justice, provided that the delinquent employee is also permitted to engage a legal practitioner to defend him.

E. PADMANABHAN, J.

In this writ petition, the petitioner an employee of the respondent bank prays for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order No. ZO : IR : AS-47 : 114 dated May 17, 1999 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from engaging any outsider as Presenting Officer in the departmental proceedings to be held into the charge memorandum dated April 23, 1996.

2. This Court ordered notice of motion on June 10, 1999. The respondent has been served. With the consent of either party the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal. Mr. S. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted detailed arguments. At the first instance none appeared for the respondent. Thereafter Mr. Sanjay Mohan submitted that he had entered appearance, but his name had not shown in the cause list and therefore the matter be reposted for further arguments. Accordingly, the writ petition Was listed once again and further arguments were heard.

3. The petitioner presently working as Clerk-cum-Typist in the respondent bank at its Zonal Office filed the present writ petition for the relief prayed for. According to the petitioner charges have been framed against him and while framing the charges without calling for explanation, the respondent simultaneously issued orders 'appointing the enquiry officer and one Mr. C. G. Prem Anand, Inspector of Police CBI as Presenting Officer.

4. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the Inspector of Police, CBI as Presenting Officer, certain preliminary objections were raised and it was also further objected that an his spector of Police, CBI shall not be appointed as Presenting officer which is contrary to the Bipartite settlement. The objection was overruled. Further the request to engage a defence counsel was also rejected. Challenging the same the petitioner filed W.P. No. 7834 of 1997 and this Court by order dated February 13, 1998 quashed the impugned memo dated December 27, 1996 as well as memo dated January 27, 1997 passed by the second, respondent. This Court also held that refusal to permit the writ petitioner to have assistance of a legal practitioner is unreasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Though initially Inspector of Police was appointed as the Presenting Officer by the Bank to present the case before the Enquiry Officer, subsequently the second respondent modified the earlier order and appointed one Mr. L. Venkatachalam, Office Manager, Purasawalkam Branch as the Enquiry Officer in the place of one Mr. S. Ram Kumar, Enquiry Officer and simultaneously appointed Mr. S. Devendran, Assistant Public Prosecutor, A.C.B C.B.I., Chennai as the Presenting Officer to present the case.

6. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the appointment of Presenting Officer. Mr. S. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent Bank cannot appoint Mr. S. Devendran, Assistant Public Prosecutor ACB CBI, Chennai as the Presenting Officer as it is contrary to Bipartite Settlement. It is fairly submitted that Mr. Devendran is a member of the Bar and he is being engaged by the CBI in various cases apart from his accepting other cases other words Mr. S. Devendran being a member of the Bar, when admittedly the petitioner had been permitted to have the assistance of a legal practitioner, there is no justification for the petitioner to contend that the Bank cannot have the assistance of another legal practitioner to present its case as has been contended by Mr. Sanjay Mohan.

7. According to Mr. S. Venkataraman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the Bipartite Settlement there is no provision permitting the Bank to engage any outsider like a legal practitioner as Presenting Officer in the departmental enquiry. It is further contended by Mr. S. Venkataraman having withdrawn the earlier order of appointment of Inspector of Police as Presenting Officer, there is no reason n