NILABJA DAS Vs. ZONAL MANAGER INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned trial Judge in C. O. No. ll188 (W)of 1986.

(2.) THE appellant was appointed to the post of Clerk- cum- Shroff in the Indian Bank with effect from 9tln June, 1980 and on 9th May, 1981 he was confirmed to the said post. By an order dated 30th October, 1984 the appellant was suspended on some grievous charges of fraudulent withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 28,800/-in the Ballygunge branch concerning the Savings Accounts of two constituents of the said Branch. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant to meet the said charges. The appellant did not receive any assistance from any representative of a registered trade union of the Bank employees to act as a defence helper in the said depart mental proceeding and it appears that he had agreed initially to conduct his case by himself. It appears that four of the witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Bank administration and two more witnesses are to be examined by the Bank to substantiate the charges against the appellant. The appellant thereafter played for engaging a lawyer for conducting his case in the said departmental proceeding and it appears that the Regional Manager has considered the appellant's appeal to engage a lawyer in the departmental proceeding and has rejected the same on the ground that as the Bank had not engaged any lawyer, the appellant should not be allowed to take assistance of a lawyer. The appellant contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case the respondents viz. the Bank authorities acted illegally and malafide in refusing to allow the appellant to take assistance of a lawyer in the departmental proceeding and the refusal to allow the appellant to have his case conducted by a lawyer has amounted to gross failure of justice, thereby vitiating the departmental proceedings itself.

(3.) NO Rule 'nisi' was issued on the said writ petition of the appellant but the writ petition was heard as a contested application upon notice to the respondents and the learned trial Judge has disposed of the said writ petition by rejecting the same on the finding that the facts did not warrant the intervention of the writ court at that stage. It may be noted that the learned trial Judge has not indicated any reason as to why it appeared to the learned trial Judge that intervention of the writ court at that stage was not warranted.