J U D G M E N T

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the respondent to allow the petitioner to engage a Legal Practitioner in the proceedings initiated against her in terms of the charge sheet dated April 24, 2020.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on compassionate basis as Peon on March 11, 2000 after demise of her father at Zonal Office of the Punjab and Sind Bank (‘Bank’, in short). In the year 2012, the petitioner was transferred from Kolkata to the Head office of the Bank and posted in HRD Department, Delhi. In 2013, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Clerk and was posted in Rajendra Place branch of the Bank in New Delhi. Between 2014 and 2017, the petitioner was transferred to various branches in Delhi. At the relevant point of time, while working as a Clerk in the branch office Punjabi Bagh, the petitioner on November 18, 2019 was suspended from the job.

3. On December 03, 2019, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner with regard to omission and commission resulting in misappropriation of cash. The petitioner had duly replied to the said show cause notice on January 10, 2020 / January 11, 2020. On April 27, 2020, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner to which a reply was given by the petitioner on May 28, 2020. On June 29, 2020 and July 14, 2020, a request was made by the petitioner to allow her to be represented in the enquiry proceedings through a Legal Practitioner. The said letter was followed by another letter dated July 17, 2020 to the Disciplinary Authority, Asst. General Manager to allow her to engage a Lawyer as Defence Representative as per Bipartite Settlement dated April 10, 2002. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the Disciplinary Authority on July 21, 2020.

This resulted in the filing of the present petition.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a statutory right to engage a Lawyer in terms of Para 12 of the said Bipartite Settlement dated April 10, 2002 and the denial of the same is illegal and arbitrary. According to the counsel, the petitioner is only 10th pass in Bengali medium and she was promoted as clerk from the post of Peon and her knowledge with regard to the technicalities and complexities involved in the matter is not at par with that of Presenting Officer, more so she is ignorant of the rules and regulations of the bank and resultantly she would be unable to protect her interest against the allegations levelled against her. Further, the denial of the request by the Disciplinary Authority is without giving any plausible reason, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. She has relied upon the judgments in the case of; (i) Antonio B. Furcado vs. Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of India, Bombay and Ors., W.P. 19/1985 and (ii) State Bank of India vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal of the Madras High Court (2004) III LLJ 676 Mad in support of her submission that in the facts of this case, the Disciplinary Authority should have allowed the petitioner to be represented through a Legal Practitioner /

Lawyer.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the issue with regard to workmen / employees being represented by a Legal Practitioner as stipulated under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement, it is clear that an employee does not have a right and the Disciplinary Authority has rightly rejected the request of the petitioner in that regard. According to him, the charges, which have been framed against the petitioner are primarily of misappropriation of funds by altering the vouchers. The allegations against the petitioner are not so complicated, that she cannot defend herself. He also stated, the allegations also include that substantial amount of cash deposited in her account and the account of her son, which are beyond known sources of her incom