SATISH PRAKASH BHATT Vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and the order under challenge in both these writ petitions is one and same and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are heard and decided together taking S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7110/2008 as leading case.

(2.) Briefly stated facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these writ petitions are that the petitioner is an employee of the respondent-State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (for short "the respondent Bank hereinafter). By order Annexure-1 dated 10th January, 2008, the respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner for certain clarification within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the order Annexure-1. The petitioner said to have submitted clarification on 21st January, 2008 vide Annexure- 2. By Annexure-3 dated 3rd June, 2008, the memorandum of charges were served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 20th June, 2008 vide Annexure-4. The respondent-Bank having not been satisfied with the reply/explanation of the petitioner initiated domestic enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer on 17th July, 2008. The petitioner submitted the name of Shri L.N. Jalani as Defence Representative vide Annexure-5. On 12th August, 2008, the charges were read over to the petitioner and the enquiry was posted to 26th August, 2008. The Defence Representative was asked to inform the Enquiry Officer if he was defending more than two disciplinary cases including the one in hand. The Defence Representative has not denied that he is handling more than two cases defending the delinquent 3 employee of the respondent Bank but submitted that as per bipartite agreement dated 10th April, 2002, no such restriction is provided for the Defence Representative to defend two or more than two disciplinary cases at a time and therefore, declined to give undertaking to the Enquiry Officer to the effect that the Defence Representative is not representing the delinquent official employee in more than two disciplinary cases. The order Annexure-8 dated 4th April, 2006 under the caption "Award Staff-Disciplinary Action Proceedings Defence Assistant, it provides that it has been decided to prescribe a ceiling in handling the number of cases in which an employee can act as defence assistant/representative and thereby, it has been decided that an employee can not take assistance or be defended by any representative/employee who has two pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. Aggrieved by this restriction, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions making a challenge to the order Annexure-8 dated 4th April, 2006 by which a restriction has been imposed by the respondent-Bank for Defence Representative.

(3.) A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-Bank inter alia contending that there is no infraction on the part of any of the legal rights of the petitioner much less fundamental rights. The respondent- Bank came with a case that the respondent-Bank has never denied the petitioners for the assistance of a Defence Representative. The only restriction providing Defence Representative is that the Defence Representative could not have more than two disciplinary cases on hand in which he is giving assistance to the departmental enquiry. It is always open for the petitioner to have the Defence Representative others one, who has not two pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he is assisting as defence representative. In the instant case both the petitioners wanted to be assisted by one Defence Representative, namely, Shri L.N.Jalani, a Trade Union Leader, who is already having two enquiries in hand in which he has given assistance and therefore, the respondent-Bank categorically came with a case that since Shri L.N. Jalani, a Trade Union Leader is already representing in the disciplinary enquiry against Shri Kishore Singh, Daftari and Mr. Ghanshyam N. Agrawal, therefore, he cannot be permitted to be a Defence Representative in any other case unless the enquiry atleast one of the case is concluded. Contending the scope and ambit of para 12.3.3 of the Bipartite agreement, the respondent-Bank came with a case that underlined idea of issuing the impugned circular 5 Annexure-8 was to ensure expeditious disposal of the enquiry proceedings. In the reply, the respondent-Bank has cited certain decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Kalindi & Ors. v. Tata Locomotive & Engineering Company Ltd., Jamshedpur, 1960 AIR(SC) 914, D.G. Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. K. Raghuram Babu, 2008 4 SCC 406, Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officers Association & Anr., 2001 9 SCC 540, Cipla Ltd. & Anr. v. Ripu Daman Bhanot & Anr., 1999 4 SCC 188 and Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi, 1993 2 SCC 115.