SISMOL JOSEPH Vs. CHIEF MANAGER (ERD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an Assistant Manager with the Union Bank of India, Pallissery Branch, is facing a disciplinary enquiry and she made a request before the Disciplinary Authority, through Ext.P4, to engage an advocate to represent her in the said proceedings. However, this has been rejected through Ext.P5 proceedings of the 1st respondent - who is the disciplinary Authority, saying that, as per Regulations 6(7) of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 "A delinquent officer may take the assistance of any other Officer Employee but cannot engage a Legal Practitioner for this purpose unless the Presenting Officer is a Legal Practitioner.

(2.) The petitioner says that Ext.P5 is egregiously contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi [2012 (2) SCC 584] and contends that the right to be defended by a counsel flows both from the constitutional provisions, as well as international instruments. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P5 be set aside and the 1st respondent be directed to permit her to have the assistance of a Legal Practitioner.

(3.) In response to the submissions of the petitioner made by her learned counsel Shri.Nireesh Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel for the Union Bank of India, Shri.Sadchith P.Kurup, submitted that since the applicable Regulations of the Bank expressly prohibit the engagement of a counsel by any delinquent officer unless the Presenting Officer is a legally trained person, the petitioner cannot seek that she be allowed to be represented through an Advocate of her choice. Shri.Sadchith P.Kurup relies on the judgment of this Court in Devadar Aided L.P.School v. Usha [2020 (3) KLT 291] to drive home the point that unless the Enquiry Officer or the Presenting Officer is a legally trained person or an Advocate, a delinquent employee cannot demand that such an assistance be granted to him/her. Shri.Sadchith P.Kurup, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.