ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Punjab National Bank. 2. Since this application can be disposed of at the admission stage without asking for any detailed counter-affidavit to the allegations made in the writ application by the respondents and since Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents has provided to us sufficient assistance to come to a fair conclusion, we do not propose to admit this application to hearing and accordingly dispose it of at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioner is an officer employed in the respondent bank and subjected to a departmental proceeding. Respondent no. 5 hat been appointed as the enquiring officer. The petitioner has objected to the enquiry by him on the ground that he is not a public servant and that only a public servant could be appointed by the appointing authority to conduct the enquiry in terms of the rules framed for the said purpose as contained in Annexure-8’ of the writ application. The relevant rule reads a5 follows :- "Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an officer employee, it may itself enquire into, or appoint any other Public Servant (hereinafter referred to as the inquiring authority) to enquire into the truth thereof. Explanation :- When the Disciplinary Authority itself holds the inquiry any reference in sub-regulation (8) to sub-regulation (2) to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to Disciplinary Authority". It states, thus that the disciplinary authority may himself hold the enquiry or appoint an officer other than himself to hold the enquiry who has been referred to as "any other public servant". 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under the said rule, the disciplinary authority could himself hold the enquiry, but in case he decided to appoint another inquiring authority, he had to appoint a public servant, as defined in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The rule itself has made such a reference and defined public servant to mean a person as defined as public servant in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, He has contended that respondent no. 5, who, like the petitioner, is an employee of the Bank, is not a public servant. The rule itself has made such a reference and defined public servant to mean a person as defined as public servant in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, He has contended that respondent no. 5, who, like the petitioner, is an employee of the Bank, is not a public servant. The word 'Public Servant' is defined to connote several categories of persons who are enumerated in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code including every person in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government Company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956, It is not in dispute that the Bank in question is one under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. It was functioning as a company until it was so taken over and nationalised by the Act. Indeed if the words used in the definition of the public servant in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code is read literally, it has to be seen whether an employee of the Bank is in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government Company as defined under section 617 of the Companies Act or not. If the nomenclature as a 'Local authority" 'a corporation' or 'a Government company' is needed to confirm such categories of employees to the definition, one may have to fix the Bank either in the category of a local authority, a corporation established as stated therein or a Government company. Expressions, like 'Public authority' 'corporation', companies etc. are given legal lexicon with reference to the laws with which they are connected and the context in which such expressions are used. In many cases, therefore, it may not be possible to refer to a particular expression to identify the character of the authority concerned and say that it is a local authority, a corporation or a company. Rules of the interpretation of the statutes do take notice of the inefficiency of the language to comprehend all possible situations. In many cases, therefore, it may not be possible to refer to a particular expression to identify the character of the authority concerned and say that it is a local authority, a corporation or a company. Rules of the interpretation of the statutes do take notice of the inefficiency of the language to comprehend all possible situations. Denning L.J. has said in Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher, (1949, 2 Kings Bench 481) :- “Whenever a statute comes up for consideration it must be remembered that it is not within human powers to foresee the manifold sets of facts which may arise; and that, even if it were, it is not possible to provide for them in terms free from all ambiguity. The English language is not an instrument of mathematical precision. Our literature would be much the poorer if it were. This is where the draftsmen of Acts of Parliament have often been unfairly criticised." Corporation, in its grammatical variations, has also been used as an expression covering various types of activities. An artificial person established or preserving in perpetual succession certain rights, which being conferred on natural persons only would fail in process of time, is called a Corporation. One cannot in the word 'Corporation', therefore, see any requirement to call by or under a law so established. In its wider connotation as noticed the Bank in question has been established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. Similarly the expression 'Local authority' may in a given context confine to an authority having a territorial jurisdiction and in another an authority created for a specified or a limited purpose. All that has to be noticed, for extending application of the expression "Local authority' to a body like the bank is to find out whether it derives its authority from a certain statute or not and by virtue of the statute it acquires its authoritative functions or not. Even if the words used in section 21 (twelfth), as noticed above, may not exactly suggest, whether to call the Bank a 'local authority' or a corporation; we have no manner of doubt that it can be fitted in the definition of 'local authority' or 'corporation' for the purpose of the definition of a 'Public servant' in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that respondent no. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that respondent no. 5 is a law graduate and has acumen of a lawyer. The petitioner desired to be represented by a lawyer before him realising that his role as the enquiring authority is not confined to a role of a Judge only, but is mixed up with that of a prosecutor also. The respondents, however, denied to him any representation by a lawyer. Learned counsel has, accordingly submitted that he has got every apprehension that his lack of expertise in the laws which may govern the disciplinary proceeding, and expertise of respondent no. 5 may conflict and result in serious prejudice to his defence. 6. Our attention has been drawn to rule 7 as contained in the Discipline and Appeal Regulations of the Bank. The said rule says. "The officer employee may take the assistance of any other officer employee but may not engage legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is legal practitioner or the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits". No presenting officer who is a legal practitioner has been appointed by disciplinary authority to conduct the enquiry in question. Nonetheless, it is in the discretion of the disciplinary authority to permit the petitioner to be represented by a legal practitioner having regard to the circumstances of the case. Lest the rule of fair play may not fall in doubt on account of what the petitioner has apprehended and lest the petitioner may have the satisfaction to have been fully represented in the enquiry, it shall be in the fitness of the circumstances of the case that the disciplinary authority exercised his discretion in his favour to permit him to be represented by a legal practitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that after he has filed this application, some evidence has been taken in the enquiry and his defence may suffer prejudice, in case such evidence is taken as concluded and be is not given opportunity to cross-examine or to re-examine if the facts and circumstances of the enquiry so deserve. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that after he has filed this application, some evidence has been taken in the enquiry and his defence may suffer prejudice, in case such evidence is taken as concluded and be is not given opportunity to cross-examine or to re-examine if the facts and circumstances of the enquiry so deserve. 7. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner, who has agreed to participate in the enquiry that may be conducted hereinafter, should be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses already examined if he so desires and to re-examine them in accordance with law. 8. In the result this application is dismissed, subject to the direction that in the enquiry hereinafter, the petitioner shall be permitted to be represented by a legal practitioner and shall also be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and re-examine them if so desired in accordance with law.