ORDER
1. Rule nisi. Sri K. Srinivasa Murthy, took notice for the respondents. The writ petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties.
2. The petitioner is a delinquent against whom the management of the respondent bank has initiated disciplinary proceedings. In this writ petition the petitioner has assailed the Constitutional validity of Regulation 6(7) and Regulation 3(j) of Andhra Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981, for short ‘the Regulations’. Regulation 6(7) provides that a delinquent employee may be represented by an officer employee of his choice in a departmental enquiry initiated against such employee, the term officer employee’ is defined in clause (j) of Regulation 3 to mean a person who holds a
supervisory, administrative or managerial post in the bank or any other person who has been appointed and is functioning as an officer of the bank, by whatever designations called and includes a person whose services arc temporarily placed at the disposal of the Central Government or a State Government or any other Government undertaking or any other public sector bank or the Reserve Bank of India or any other organisation. The petitioner is presently holding M.M.III grade scale post as an officer in the establishment of the bank. Having regard to the provisions of Regulation 6(7) read with Regulation 3(j) it makes clear that the petitioner can choose one of the officer employees as his defence representative. The grievance of the petitioner is that when he sought to avail the services of a retired bank officer, by name A. Krishna Murthy, the Inquiring Authority refused the petitioner to avail the services of that person.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner quite vehemently contended that Regulation 6(7) read with Regulation 3(j) excluding the opportunity for a delinquent to avail the services of an outside like a retired Bank Officer, is totally arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel would also point out that no prejudice would be caused to the bank management if an outsider is permitted to be appointed as defence representative. The only question which falls for consideration is whether Regulation 6(7) read with Regulation 3(j) provides for a reasonable opportunity for a delinquent to represent himself in a departmental enquiry. It is well settled that in a departmental enquiry a delinquent cannot avail the services of an Advocate or the services of an outsider as a matter of right and at his choice. At the same time an employee being a delinquent, in a departmental enquiry should be given a fair opportunity of being represented effectively. The definition of the term ‘officer employee’ includes many categories of serving employees. The petitioner has a free
choice to avail the services of any officer employee within several categories envisaged under Regulation 3(j). In the entire affidavit no where it is stated that no officer employee is prepared to represent the petitioner as a defence representative in the pending departmental enquiry.
4. In my considered opinion, Regulation 6(7)
read with Regulation 3(j) affords reasonable
opportunity to the petitioner to avail the
services of one of the officer employees to
defend himself in the enquiry. Therefore it
cannot be said that Regulation 6(7) is
unreasonable or arbitrary. No ground is made
out for entertaining the writ petition. It is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.