(1.) DR. B. S. Chauhan, J. This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2006 of a learned Judge of this Court, by which the writ petition filed by the present appellant for issuing a direction upon the respondents to grant him permission to have a lawyer as a defence nominee in disciplinary proceedings, has been dismissed.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner-appellant, who is working as Head Cashier Category 'e' had been served with a charge-sheet on 1-4-2006 and the respondent No. 5 had been appointed as Inquiry Officer. THE petitioner-appellant made a representation before the respondent No. 4, the Disciplinary Authority, requesting him to accord permission to seek assistance from a lawyer. However, the said representation was rejected vide order dated 28-4-2006. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-appellant challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority rejected the same vide order dated 20- 5-2006. THE said orders were challenged by filing the writ petition, which has been dismissed on the ground that the department was not being represented by lawyers and the case did not involve complicated legal issues as it was merely a case of financial irregularities. THE learned Single Judge held that the provisions applicable for holding the enquiry is governed by Clause 12 of the Memorandum of Settlement reached between the parties, which is binding on them in view of the provisions of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. THE said clause provides that a lawyer may be engaged as a defence nominee only with the permission of the Bank otherwise the employee can be represented through the registered trade union and as such the order of rejection of his application for seeking lawyer assistance was not unreasonable and arbitrary.
(3.) WE have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.