(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the chitradurga gramin bank (hereinafter referred to as bank - for short) aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge dated October 19, 1998 passed in w. p. No. 10778/96 allowing the writ petition filed by respondent-1, manager of the appellant bank.
(2.) THE respondent, the manager, was issued with a charge sheet dated may 29, 1995 making certain allegations against him. The petitioner-respondent submitted an explanation dated June 9, 1995 to the bank. Thereafter, the appellant-bank has filed a criminal complaint dated June 4, 1995 before hiriyur police, which has registered a regular case in crime No. 268/95 before the court of munsiff and jmfc, hiriyur, the same is pending. The bank during the pendency of criminal proceedings appointed appellant-2 as an enquiry officer and also appointed one sri. P. v. kondappa as presenting officer to present the case on behalf of the bank before the enquiry officer. The petitioner/respondent submitted a representation dated February 29, 1996 seeking for an assistance by an advocate. He also contended that in view of the pendency of criminal proceedings the enquiry may be withheld until the completion of the criminal case. The enquiry officer rejected both these requests at Annexure-G. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 10778/96 and sought for quashing of the said order and also sought for direction to permit him to be defended by an Advocate in the enquiry proceedings. He also sought for a direction to the bank to set off his hands till the completion of criminal proceedings. Notices were issued and the respondents have entered appearance. Learned single judge heard the matter and after hearing the learned judge has allowed the writ petition. Since the disciplinary proceedings were stayed and the management was directed to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings only on the conclusion of criminal proceedings. The petition/ respondent was also given an opportunity to engage a legal practitioner of his choice by learned judge. Aggrieved by the said order mentioned earlier the bank has come in an appeal before us.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the bank argued at length and contended that the learned judge is not justified in staying the proceedings of the enquiry on account of the pendency of criminal proceedings. He relied on the following judgments viz. State of Rajasthan V. B. K. Meena and others (1997-i-llj-746) (sc), depot manager A. P. S. R. T. C. V. Md. Yousuf Miya, of Punjab, (1997-ii-llj-902) (SC) and ILR 1997-vol. 3, kar. Page 781. He argued that the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal proceedings stand on different footing. The nature of evidence, the procedural formality differ in both the proceedings. He argued that on the facts of this case the stay of the proceedings is unnecessary. Similarly he contended that in the absence of provision providing for a legal assistance the learned judge is not right in granting that relief to the petitioner/respondent.