M ANBU Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of interim injunction dated 5-12-2005, restraining the respondents from proceeding with the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, the respondents have filed the petitions to vacate the interim injunction. When the petitions to vacate the interim injunction were taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing on either side agreed that the main writ petition themselves may be taken up for final hearing and disposal.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are as follows: petitioner is working as the Chief Manager in the Administrative office of the second respondent bank and recently posted as Faculty in the staff Training College of the second respondent bank at Karur. Petitioner claims that he has put in 25 years of unblemished service and by virtue of his hard work, sincerity and honesty, he has risen to the position of Faculty in the second respondent bank. While so, the petitioner was served with five charge-sheets dated 30-4-2005, 24-6-2005, 25-6-2005, 4-8-2005 and 16-8-2005, alleging that he had committed certain lapses while extending credit facility to M/s. Sri priyalakshmi Garments while he was working as Manager in Tiruppur Branch during the period between 1995 and 1999; that he had committed certain lapses in the matter of extending credit facilities to M/s. Balapattabhi and m/s. R. S. L. Industries while he was working as the Manager of Coimbatore branch during the period between 2000 and 200 1; that he had committed certain irregularities in providing credit facilities to M/s. Hy-Luck Fashions when he was working as Manager of Coimbatore Branch; and that he had committed eight different acts of irregularities when he was working as the Divisional Manager at the Divisional Office at Karur. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the above said charge sheets. The second respondent bank, not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner in respect of all the said five different charge memos and appointed the third respondent as the Enquiry Officer and one N. Kavirajan as the Presenting officer. The petitioner gave a representation dated 8-11-2005 requesting the enquiry Officer to permit him to engage a legal practitioner to defend his case in the Departmental Enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority, by communication dated 11-11-2005, rejected the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions. The writ petitions were admitted by this Court on 5-12-2005 and by the order of interim injunction, the respondents were restrained from proceeding with the departmental enquiry. The respondents have filed the petitions to vacate the interim injunction granted by this court. As stated above, with consent of parties, the main writ petitions themselves were taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this common order and learned counsel for the parties submitted their arguments in the main writ petitions themselves.

(3.) IN sum and substance, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be the denial of his request to engage a lawyer as defence representative in the departmental enquiry initiated against him by the second respondent.