- (1.) BY the Court. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the order dated 3 -11 -2001 passed by the Assistant General Manager of Allahabad Bank (Disciplinary Authority). A further prayer has been made that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioner to nominate a defence representative.
(2.) THE petitioner is a manager in Allahabad Bank. A show -cause notice dated 24 -3 -2001 was issued to him to which he gave a reply. Thereafter, the Bank decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and a charge sheet dated 23 -8 -2001 containing the articles of charges, list of witnesses and documents was served upon him. After the petitioner had submitted his explanation he was informed that Sri R.K. Singh (respondent No. 2) had been appointed as enquiry officer for holding disciplinary proceedings against him. The petitioner then moved an application on 20 -10 -2001 that Sri Surendra Misra, a retired officer of Central Excise Department may be permitted to act as his defence representative. He moved another application on 27 -10 -2001 reiterating his earlier prayer and requested that Shri Surendra Misra be permitted to act as his defence representative. In the same application, it was also stated that in case there was any objection against Sri Surendra Misra then Sri K.K. Dubey, who was also a retired officer of Customs and Excise Department may be permitted to act as his defence representative. These applications were rejected by the Disciplinary Authority by the impugned order dated 3 -11 -2001 and the relevant part of the order reads as under: This has reference to your letters dated 20 -10 -2001 and 27 -10 -2001 on the captioned subject. In this connection, The Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 do not permit engagement of a person other than an officer employee of the Bank to act as the Defence Assistant in the Departmental Enquiry Proceedings. You are, therefore, advised to be guided accordingly. Sri S.D. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been able to get the services of any serving bank officer to defend him in the enquiry and, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has erred in rejecting his request to permit Sri Surendra Misra to act as his defence representative. Sri Himanshu Tewari, learned Counsel for Allahabad Bank has submitted that the petitioner has no right to have the services of any person as his defence representative. Learned Counsel has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the said right is circumscribed by the Allahabad Bank Officers Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Sri Tewari has further submitted that under the relevant regulations, a retired officer of Central Excise Department cannot be permitted to function as defence representative.
(3.) CLAUSE 7 of Regulation 6 of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 read as under: 6(7) The officer employee may take the assistance of any other officer employees but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the Presenting Officer, appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner or the Disciplinary Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. NOTE: The officer employee shall not take the assistance of any other officer employee who has two pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance.;