ARVIND KUMAR Vs. NALANDA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 17.2.2000 passed in CWJC No. 1487 of 1999 by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which he has dismissed the writ application against the order dated 4.12.1997 passed by the disciplinary authority, i.e. Chairman, Nalanda Gramin Bank, Biharshariff, respondent no. 2, which has been annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ application, awarding punishment of reduction of time scale at three stages and the order dated 9.10.1998 passed by the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal against the disciplinary authority, which has been annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ application.

(2.) THE appellant is an employee of the respondent Bank since 1987 and at the relevant time he was posted as Junior Management Scale I. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant and a charge sheet dated 8.12.1995 was served upon him. The allegations against the appellant in the charge sheet was of indiscipline, disobedience, unauthorised absence from duty, adoption of unfair means at an examination of C.A.I.B Part -2 conducted by the Indian Bankers ' Association and flouting of lawful orders of superiors, details of the same were given in the chargesheet. Sri Ram Nandan Prasad Singh, Senior Manager of Bank was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Sri Suresh Prasad, a law graduate having no legal training and specialised knowledge was appointed as the Presenting Officer on behalf of the Bank. At the commencement of the inquiry, the appellant was asked to give the name of an employee or the Officer of the Bank to act as his representative for defending him in the proceeding. The appellant on 12.2.1996 filed an application and requested to allow him to engage a lawyer Sri D.K. Jha as his defence assistance. The said prayer of the appellant was rejected by the inquiring officer on 13.2.1996 which has been annexed as Annexure -7 to the writ application, and the appellant was directed to appear and participate in the proceeding. The appellant again filed an application on 10.4.1996 before the Chairman of the Bank to allow him to engage a lawyer for his defence which was again rejected by the Chairman on 16.4.1996, which has been annexed as Annexure -9 to the writ application, on the ground that the rules of the Bank do not permit and the appellant was free to select employee or himself conduct the proceeding. The said decision was reiterated by the Enquiry Officer again on 19.4.1996, which has been annexed as Annexure -10 to the writ application. During the inquiry, the appellant did not appear on several dates and whenever he appeared he filed an application for engagement of the advocate as stated above. The Enquiry Officer having no option but to proceed ex parte and concluded the disciplinary proceeding and sent minutes of the ex parte proceeding by a registered post to the appellant to file his written defence by 17.8.1996. The appellant filed a written defence. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the disciplinary authority holding that out of five charges, four were proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice along with inquiry report was sent to the appellant vide letter dated 1.7.1997 and the appellant filed a show cause. There - after the disciplinary authority considered entire materials and agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer awarded the punishment as stated above. The appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 9.10.1998. The learned Single Judge has upheld both the orders.

(3.) THE first question that falls for consideration is as to whether the refusal of the prayer of appellant by the Inquiring Officer and the disciplinary authority to engage a lawyer to defend him in the departmental proceeding has resulted in denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing which has vitiated the same.