The central legal point established in the judgment is the petitioner's right to be defended through an independent representative from another bank in a departmental enquiry, based on the interpretation of relevant regulations and principles of fair play and natural justice.

S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) DENIAL of assistance of a law assistant to represent and defend the petitioner in the departmental enquiry has been the causative factor for knocking the door of this Court by means of the present petition. The petition on hand has been instituted for the relief of certiorari quashing the whole enquiry proceedings including charge sheet contained in Annexures 5, 7 and 10 to the writ petition and the second relief, ostensibly as an alternative, is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to allow the petitioner to appoint an independent defence representative (Sri R. P. Singh, Special Officer of Central Bank of India ). Besides the above reliefs, the petitioner has also prayed for other ancillary reliefs.

( 2 ) THE petitioner claims to be a non-gazetted officer- The precise indictment, against the petitioner as contained in the charge- sheet is that he remained posted as manager at Ladpur Branch and also at Khair branch of the Bank and while posted as manager at the aforesaid branches, he leagued with certain borrowers and granted fictitious loan in breach of the norms/guidelines prescribed by the Bank and thereby worked against the interest of the Bank. So far as first relief is concerned, at the very threshold, it is worth observing that since enquiry proceedings are afoot and petitioner, indisputably, has an alternative remedy to represent his case before the enquiry officer or the Disciplinary authority, as the case may be, who alone can entertain the prayer for appropriate reliefs and the prayer for quashing the disciplinary proceeding and the charge-sheet being superrogatory at this stage, cannot be entertained and the petition to this extent is liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner abandoned his contention in relation to first prayer and switched over to second prayer stating that in the departmental enquiry, he made an application attended with the prayer to permit the assistance of a law assistant to represent him before the enquiry officer which was declined. The substance of argument advanced across the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry officer however accorded permission to engage some colleague employee of the self-same Bank to represent and defend the petitioner in the enquiry. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner cannot be defended properly with the assistance of a colleague employee of the self-same Bank inasmuch as the enquiry has commenced at Headquarters and in the presence of senior officers including Chairman of the bank, it is unlikely that the petitioner may be represented and defended properly by an employee of the Bank. He suggested that the petitioner might be permitted to engage some independent person to defend and represent him in the enquiry and named one R. P. Singh of central Bank of India. To enforce his aforestaied submissions, the learned counsel called in aid the decisions reported in. AIR 1983 SC 454 : 1983-II-LLJ-l, AIR 1983 SC 109 : 1983-I-LLJ-l and AIR 1991 SC 1221.

( 4 ) IN opposition, Sri Yashwant Verma, appearing for the opposite parties contended that the right to e-ngage defending representative does not consist in reasonable opportunity to defend and such right is contingent upon the Rules and Regulations governing the disciplinary proceeding. He further contended that Aligarh Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2000 do not envisage any provision to engage any defending representative from other Bank and therefore, proceeds the submission, the petitioners claim to engage Sri R. P. Singh from Central Bank of India to defend and represent him in the enquiry has no cutting edge and does not lend itself for acceptance. In aid of his contentions, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on decisions reported in air 2001 SC 4007 : 2001 (9) SCC 540 : 2001-II-LU-1417and AIR 1999 SC 401: 1999 (1) SCC 626: 1999-I-LLJ-352.

( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document