Allahabad High Court
Mukul Kumar Bhushan vs Union Of India And 5 Others on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4514 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mukul Kumar Bhushan
Respondent :- Union Of India And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sundeep Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dharmendra Vaish
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Sandeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dharmendra Vaish, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15th March, 2022, whereby he has been communicated with the order dated 15th March, 2022 issued by the Chief Manager, namely, the respondent No.- 4, wherein it has been mentioned that request for appointment of practicing lawyer as Defence Representative has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Regulation 44 of the Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank (Officer and Employee) Service Regulation, 2010, there are restrictions on the engagement of the legal practitioner as a Defence Representative for a charged employee as the same is subject to approval but the respondent while rejecting the request for appointment of such legal practitioner must record some reasons to support the order. He argues that the petitioner is not physically well and that is why he moved an application. Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the petitioner being retired employee suffering from health problems should be permitted to engage legal practitioner as Defence Representative in case of inquiry.
Sri Vaish, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 submits that the petitioner does not have any absolute right to get legal practitioner appointed as Defence Representative and in this regard he has placed reliance upon the latest judgment of Supreme Court in the case of The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) & another v. Ramesh Chandra Meena & another passed in Civil Appeal No.- 7451 of 2021 on 4th January, 2022. He has placed reliance upon paragraph 8 of the judgment in support of his argument that the petitioner having no absolute right, he cannot be aggrieved of the decision taken under the order impugned.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar, I find that the regulation is restrictive in nature as it provides discretion to the employer to grant permission or not to a charged employee to engage a legal practitioner because prior permission of the competent authority is mandatory. However, the question is, whether the subjective consideration of the authority competent in the matter to consider and decide the application is based on any cogent and convincing reason. This aspect, therefore, is a matter of consideration before this Court. Even in the case cited before me by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank, I find that in the said case respondents while rejecting the request for appointment of a legal practitioner as Defence Representative, the competent authority in that matter had clearly observed that "no complicated legal question has been involved in the matter and the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is neither Law Officer nor a legal practitioner" and it is said reason assigned in the order impugned in that case could not be questioned as the delinquent employee had no absolute right.
I have noticed that in the said judgment Supreme Court has very categorically held that the bank had been justified in not permitting its ex employee as Defence Representative and according to the bank the ex employees themselves may have been subjected to the disciplinary inquiry, chargesheeted and dismissed from service.
In such above view of the matter, therefore, I am of this considered view that even though a charged employee does not have any absolute right to get a legal practitioner engaged as a Defence Representative, the competent authority who has to take a decision in the matter and so exercise of such discretion to grant permission or not must be supported by reasons, declining the request in a line or two without assigning reasons is not justifiable.
In view of the above, the order passed by the authority competent in the matter i.e Chief Manager, the Disciplinary Action Committee (DAC) dated 15th March, 2022 cannot be sustained. The order is, accordingly, hereby quashed and so also the consequential communication dated 15th March, 2022 to continue the inquiry further is also quashed.
The matter is thus remitted to the Chief Manager (DAC) to take decision afresh by passing reasoned and speaking order upon the request application of the petitioner dated 14th March, 2022 to permit him to appoint a legal practitioner as Defence Representative. It will be open for the petitioner to file papers before the authority regarding his illness.
Since the respondent bank is represented by Sri Dharmendra Vaish, learned Advocate, who shall communicate this order to the concerned competent authority within 48 hours and who shall take decision in the matter within next two weeks' time.
Order Date :- 4.4.2022
Atmesh
