CHANDRA PRAKASH GUPTA PRABHU PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. NIDESHAK KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK BHARAT SARKAR NIDESHAK MANDAL ADHYAKSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for issuing directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to engage a legal practitioner to defend him in departmental proceedings.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Held Officer in 1962, has been served with the charge-sheet dated 16.8.2004 contending the allegations that he did not observe the responsibility of his post and committed serious irregularities jeopardising the interest of the Bank and made recommendations for the undeserving loans. It may be pertinent to mention here that prior to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings by issuing the charge-sheet dated 16.8.2004, an F.I.R. had also been lodged against the petitioner on 20.5.2003, and the Crime Case No. 442 of 2003 is still pending. Petitioner made an application under the provisions of Regulation No. 43 of the Kisan Gramin Bank, Budaun Revised Officer and the Employees' Service Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter called the Regulations), which permits the representation of the delinquent employee by the professional lawyer, if the competent authority so permits. However, his application was rejected vide order dated 30.7.2005 observing that he can take the services of any Bank employee for that purpose. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 30.7.2005 preferred the appeal, which has also been rejected vide order dated 28.11.2005 by the respondent No. 2. Hence this petition.

(3.) Shri U.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that initiation of the criminal prosecution as well as the disciplinary proceedings is at the behest of one Shri Narendra Math Dwivedi, the then Branch Manager, against whom an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C has been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, and the said order has been passed by the Court on the basis of the deposition made by the petitioner as PW2. Thus, the whole proceedings are mala fides and rejection of the application of the petitioner for engaging a lawyer is arbitrary, unreasonable, and therefore, the orders passed by the respondent-authority are liable to be quashed.