MEETA J MEHTA Vs. VALSAD DANG GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, name of respondent No. 2, Inquiry Officer, is deleted. Original respondent No. 1 will now be the sole respondent. Rule. Mr. K. I. Shah, learned Advocate, appears for the respondent and waives service of rule. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) This petition is filed by the petitioners, for directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner and only thereafter to proceed with the enquiry instituted against her.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that she was serving as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in Valsad-Dang Gramin Bank at Vandervela Branch, Taluka Vansda, District Valsad. She was placed under suspension and was facing departmental enquiry for alleged misconduct. A charge-sheet was issued to her on 1/09/1995, wherein it was alleged that irregularities were committed by her in about 73 incidents when she was at Valsad Branch during her tenure in the years 1991 and 1992. Copy of the said charge-sheet is annexed with the petition. In connection with those allegations, departmental enquiry was instituted against her. The petitioner made an application on 5/10/1995, Annexure "B" to the petition, wherein a prayer was made to allow her to engage an Advocate. The grounds were also mentioned by her in the said application. The Chairman and Disciplinary Authority, vide his letter dated 9/10/1995, rejected the said application, inter alia, on two grounds :- Firstly, it was mentioned that in accordance of the provisions of Valsad-Dang Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1994 and the provisions of Sec. 30 of the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976, she cannot, as of right, claim representation through an Advocate. Under Clause (iii) of Regulation 30, the enquiry may be delegated to any Officer, as mentioned in the said Regulation. For the purpose of enquiry, the Officer or employee may not engage a legal practitioner. The second reason which was given by the Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority was that the Presenting Officer for the said case was also neither a legal practitioner nor legally trained person. Being aggrived by the aforesaid communication, the petitioner has approached this Court.