- (1.) The petitioner, who has been working as Cashier-in-Charge in different branches of Paschim Banga Gramin Bank has been charged with misappropriation of founds of the bank. THE memo of charges was issued on 28th August, 2008. THEreafter, the enquiry could not make much headway, and petitioner had come up with a grievance that he was not being supplied with the relevant documents. Subsequently, by an order of this Court passed on 8th June, 2009 in W.P. No. 8852 (W) of 2009 the bank was directed to allow access to the petitioner to the documents as the contention of the bank was that the documents involved were voluminous and could not be copied individually and supplied to the petitioner.
(2.) Thereafter such access has been given. In the present case, however, the complain of the petitioner is on another count. He has prayed for being represented by a legal practitioner in course of the disciplinary proceeding. Such prayer has been refused by the General Manager of the bank. Submission of learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that the case being of a complex nature it would not be possible for him to conduct his defence by himself or by any other person not having legal training in law. My attention has been drawn to the Service Rule of the bank and Rule 43 relates to the question of engaging a legal practitioner in course of an enquiry. This rules provides: "43. Restriction on engagement of a Legal Practitioner.-For the purpose of enquiry, the officer or employee shall not engage a legal practitioner without prior permission of the competent authority".
(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the bank submitted that no employee has a vested legal right to be represented by a legal practitioner in a disciplinary proceedings. The rules of natural justice would require permitting an employee to engage a legal practitioner only if the presenting officer on behalf of the employer is legally trained. He has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay vs. D.R. Nadkarni, 1983 1 SCC 124 and a Division Bench judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director vs. M. Rajan Isaac, 2005 5 SLR 110. The position of law thus appears to be clear that in course of disciplinary proceeding, the charged officer does not have any vested legal right to be represented by a legal practitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that since there is no blanket prohibition on engaging a legal practitioner by a charged officer, the nature of the charges should be the guiding factor for deciding the question and the authorities in the present case did not consider that aspect but had routinely rejected his representation without disclosing any reason.;