LATOORI SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN ALIGARH GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DENIAL of assistance of a law assistant to represent and defend the petitioner in the departmental enquiry has been the causative factor for knocking the door of this Court by means of the present petition. The petition on hand has been instituted for the relief of certiorari quashing the whole enquiry proceedings including charge-sheet contained in Annexures-5, 7 and 10 to the writ petition and the second relief, ostensibly as an alternative, is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to allow the petitioner to appoint an independent defence representative (Sri R. P. Singh a Special Officer of Central Bank of India). Besides the above reliefs, the petitioner has also prayed for other ancillary reliefs.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be a non-gazetted officer. THE precise indictment against the petitioner as contained in the charge-sheet is that he remained posted as Manager at Ladpur Branch and also at Khair Branch of the Bank and while posted as Manager at the aforesaid branches, he leagued with certain borrowers and granted fictitious loan in breach of the norms/guidelines prescribed by the Bank and thereby worked against the interest of the Bank. So far as first relief is concerned, at the very threshold-it is worth observing that since enquiry proceedings are afoot and petitioner, indisputably, has an alternative remedy to represent his case before the enquiry officer or the Disciplinary authority, as the case may be, who alone can entertain the prayer for appropriate reliefs and the prayer for quashing the disciplinary proceedings and the charge-sheet being supererogatory at this stage, cannot be entertained and the petition to this extent is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their respective arguments in all their ramifications. Before examining the contentions of the learned counsel, it is necessary to have an acquaintance with the Aligarh Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter to be abbreviated as Regulations). Proviso to Regulation 38 Part I being germane to the controversy involved in this petition is excerpted below :