Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1874 (MAD)

G. Venu v. Syndicate Bank & Others

2003-11-18

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, K.GNANAPRAKASAM

body2003
Judgment :- B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 20.08.2003 in W.P.No.45362 of 2002 in a matter relating to permission to be accorded for engagement of a lawyer. There is a bipartite agreement dated 27.4.2002, which covers this aspect. It reads as follows:- "12. The procedure in such cases shall be as follows: (a)An employee against whom disciplinary action is proposed or likely to be taken shall be given a charge sheet clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and a date shall be fixed for enquiry, sufficient time being given to him to enable him to prepare and give his explanation as also to produce any evidence that he may wish to tender in his defence. He shall be permitted to appear before the Officer conducting the enquiry, to cross examine any witness on whose evidence the charge rests and to examine witnesses and produce other evidence in his defence. He shall also be permitted to be defended. (i)(x) by a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry. (y)Where the employee is not a member of any trade union of bank employees on the aforesaid date, by a representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank in which he is employed OR (ii) at the request of the said unon by a representative of the state federation or all India Organisation to which such union is affiliated; OR (iii) with the Bank's permission, by a lawyer. He shall also be given a hearing as regards the nature of the proposed punishment in case any charge is established against him." 2. Mr.Chandru, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contends that the appellant belongs to S.C/S.T.Association and that S.C/S.T.Association is ready to lend its services to defend the appellant, but the enquiry officer appointed by the respondent bank is not permitting such a move. Insofar as the submission that the appellant is entitled to be represented by S.C/S.T.Association is concerned, in our considered view S.C/S.T.Association cannot be construed as a registered trade union of bank employees or representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank or a representative of the state federation or all India Organisation. Insofar as the submission that the appellant is entitled to be represented by S.C/S.T.Association is concerned, in our considered view S.C/S.T.Association cannot be construed as a registered trade union of bank employees or representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank or a representative of the state federation or all India Organisation. If the above clauses are applicable, then the appellant is entitled as of right to seek for legal assistance. But, if sub-clause (iii) of para 12 is to be invoked, then the appointment of a lawyer to defend the appellant is not a matter of right. It is only when the bank permits that a lawyer's services can be had, then the bank also cannot arbitrarily and without valid reasons, deny such legal assistance by a lawyer. 3. We had an occasion to consider this aspect in a similar matter and in fact concerning the same bipartite agreement in W.A.No.3497 of 2002. By our judgment dated 26.11.2002, we held that there is no automatic right on the delinquent to seek for lawyers assistance unless the facts and circumstances of the case are made out. In that case, the learned single Judge has held that the engagement of a lawyer was a matter of right, but we did not agree and modified the finding of the learned single Judge to the effect that there was no automatic right vested in a delinquent employee to engage a lawyer and that was hedged with a condition of satisfaction of the management/bank to permit the delinquent, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In that case, we held that the facts and circumstances of that case warranted grant of permission to be defended by a lawyer. In the instant case too, we find that the allegations which are made against the appellant constituting the charge sheet, need a lawyer's assistance. We may observe, before parting, that the management, be it Government or banks or other public sector undertakings, which comes under the definition of 'State' in Article 12 of the Constitution of India, should avoid unnecessary litigation of this nature and be liberal in acceding to the request of legal assistance. 4. We may observe, before parting, that the management, be it Government or banks or other public sector undertakings, which comes under the definition of 'State' in Article 12 of the Constitution of India, should avoid unnecessary litigation of this nature and be liberal in acceding to the request of legal assistance. 4. In the wake of what is stated supra, we allow the writ appeal to the extend indicated infra that the appellant, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, has made out a case for seeking legal assistance of a lawyer. We fix the outer limit for conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry at three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, within which time the appellant may engage a lawyer within such time as may be stipulated by the enquiry officer and then co-operate, without trying to drag the matter unnecessarily. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.P.No.4807 of 2003 is closed.