LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-484

M.UMAPATHY Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

Decided On January 07, 2019
M.Umapathy Appellant
V/S
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against the impugned letter bearing No.EO/IR/8508(MU)/IR/719/2016-17 dtd. 1/12/2016 issued by the second respondent refusing the request of the petitioner for legal assistance to assist him in the departmental enquiry with a direction to the petitioner to be present for the enquiry posted for 6/12/2016 and avail the opportunity of putting forth of the petitioner's side defence.

(2.) Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined the first respondent Bank on 30/10/1992 as Clerk/Shroff/Typist and on 14/6/2013, he was suspended from service in respect of the charge sheet issued to him for certain alleged acts of commission and omission, while he was serving as a Special Assistant at Sathuvachari Branch, Vellore. Therefore, the petitioner has made an application seeking permission to provide him a legal assistance as Defence Representative which has been unreasonably refused by the disciplinary authority, which is running contra to the law laid down by this Court in W.P. No.14401 of 2017 and W.P. No.4530 of 2017 dtd. 21/6/2017 and 13/11/2017. Since this Court has laid down the law in the above said cases permitting the petitioner to engage a lawyer to represent his claim in the domestic enquiry, this writ petition may be allowed.

(3.) Heavily opposing the prayer sought for in the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were complicated questions of fact and law and therefore, there is no need for providing lawyer's assistance to the petitioner to conduct the enquiry before the enquiry officer. He would further submit that when the petitioner came to this Court with the W.P. No.15056 of 2014 long time back, he has miserably failed to make this prayer and as such this writ petition has been filed solely for the purpose of protracting the enquiry. Therefore, the legal assistance as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted.