VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that a substantial question of law has arisen as the impugned judgment dated 10.3.2005 which had endorsed the finding of the Trial Judge dated 8.7.2000 has mis-appreciated vital legal aspects relating to proceedings conducted before the Enquiry Officer and the principles of natural justice not having been adhered to. In this context he has made two fold submissions.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the impugned judgment dated 10.3.2005 wherein the Court had held that representation of the appellant by a lawyer or legal practitioner in the Enquiry proceedings was not a matter of right, although admitting that presenting officer on behalf of the department namely R.K. Jain was a qualified lawyer. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter has been brushed aside lightly by both the Courts below without appreciating the fact that the denial of this right to the appellant of being represented before the Enquiry Officer by his advocate has caused severe miscarriage of justice to him as the presenting officer on behalf of the management was himself a qualified lawyer having a LL.B degree; since the appellant could not be represented by a person of the same ability, he has suffered a serious prejudice.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court, The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Ors., 1983 AIR(SC) 109 as also J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana, 1991 LabIC 1008 Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors. to support this submission.