( 1 ) THE writ petitioner is aggrieved by (a) the charge-sheet dated December 5, 2003, whereby a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him; (b) the decision whereby his prayer for engaging a lawyer as defence helper has been rejected; and (c) the manner in which the enquiry officer has so far proceeded. ( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is this. He is a cobbler (mochi) by caste, and hence belongs to a Scheduled Caste. On March 1, 1979 he joined the respondent-bank. Till October 1991, when he joined its Malda Branch, there was no problem in his place of work. During the period from January 1992 to April 1997 he did not get due salary and allowances, and hence he moved this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 13253 (W) of 1997. Alleging that he was subjected to untouchability both mental and physical, at the place of his work (in Malda branch of the bank), in March 1998 he lodged a complaint with the District Magistrate, Malda. On december 15, 1999 he was severely assaulted by some officials of the branch. Complaint by his wife dated December 27, 1999 was treated as the First Information Report, and the police started investigation. His prayers made from time to time by representations to the higher authorities for making enquiry into the allegations made by him failed to move the authorities. In 2000 he filed an application in his pending 1997 writ petition. He prayed for release of salary from March 2000; since he did not get relief from the learned single Judge, he preferred an appeal before the Division Bench. During pendency of the appeal on September, 5, 2003 the police submitted charge-sheet regarding the incident of assault on December 15, 1999. The charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal -Code against the manager and three other employees of the Malda branch of the bank. On december 15, 2003 the appeal was disposed of, and the bank was directed to pay the salary in accordance with law. Till this date nothing was disclosed by the bank about initiation and pendency of any disciplinary proceeding against him. On December 26, 2003 he received a letter from the enquiry officer that in connection with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him the preliminary enquiry would be held on January 13, 2004. Till this date nothing was disclosed by the bank about initiation and pendency of any disciplinary proceeding against him. On December 26, 2003 he received a letter from the enquiry officer that in connection with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him the preliminary enquiry would be held on January 13, 2004. Pursuant to his request the enquiry officer supplied a copy of the charge-sheet to him on January 13, 2004. From the allegations made in the charge-sheet under its 10 (ten) items, and the incidents which happened from the year 1992, it is clear that the charge-sheet has been issued mala fide. ( 3 ) MR. Subrata Talukdar appears for the petitioner. He contends that the stale and utterly vague allegations made in the charge- sheet as a counterblast to the police charge-sheet must lead to the conclusion that the proceeding has t been initiated mala fide. He relies on the decisions reported at Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 ; Surath chandra Chakravarty v. State of West Bengal, air 1971 SC 752 : 1970 (3) SCC 548 : 1971-,i-LLJ-293; State of Haryana v. Rajendra sareen, AIR 1972 SC 1004 : 1972 (1) SCC 267 1972-I-LLJ-205; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh AIR 1990 SC 1308 : 1990 Supp scc 738 : 1990-II-LLJ- 529; Rattan Lal sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari ram (Co- education) Higher Secondary school, AIR 1993 SC 2155 : 1993 (4) SCC 10 : 1993-II-LLJ-549; Kumaon Mandal Vikas nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant, AIR 2001 sc 24 : 2001 (1) SCC 182 : 2001-I-LLJ-583; state of Punjab v. V. K. Khanna AIR 2001 SC 343 : 2001 (2) SCC 330 . ( 4 ) MR Hirak Mitra appears for the bank. He submits that from the facts and circumstances disclosed in the application for vacation of interim order (it has been treated as the opposition to the writ petition), it is clear that the grounds on which the charge- sheet has been challenged have no substance. He points out that without specifying the person who acted mala fide in issuing the charge-sheet, the plea has been raised; and hence it does not call for any examination at all. Regarding the delay in initiating the proceeding, on some of the charges he has relied on the explanations given in the third paragraph of the opposition. He points out that without specifying the person who acted mala fide in issuing the charge-sheet, the plea has been raised; and hence it does not call for any examination at all. Regarding the delay in initiating the proceeding, on some of the charges he has relied on the explanations given in the third paragraph of the opposition. ( 5 ) I find that on the facts of the case it will be totally unfair and unjust to permit the bank to proceed with the charges mentioned in Items 1, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the charge-sheet; they are as follows:"7. On September 15, 1999 at around 11:00 a. m. , you started shouting filthy and slang languages towards other staff members of the Branch, all of a sudden, 20 Staff members of the branch had lodged a complaint vide their letter dated September 15, 1999 against you for using such language at them. They had also mentioned about your misbehaving with the customers of the branch. 4. On December 15, 1999, at around 10:30 a. m. , you suddenly started shouting in the banking hall at high pitch of voice alleging all the members as thieves and that you would see all the members. 5. On March 23, 2000, April 28, 2000 and on June 13, 2000, you brought some outsiders to the Branch, who challenged the bank's decision of recovering proportionate salary and allowances from you on account of your absence and insisted to refund the amount recovered from you. 6. Finally, 15 staff members of the branch lodged a complaint against you for your irregular and indecent behaviour provoking them to confront with you. You have also been alleged of disrupting the normalcy of the branch, thereby affecting the smooth functioning of the branch adversely. 10. Your such acts as mentioned above have not only affected the smooth functioning of the Bank, but have tarnished the image of our Bank in the public apart from disappointing the other staff members in the branch. " ( 6 ) THE third paragraph of the opposition, on which Mr. Mitra has relied for explaining the delay in initiating the proceeding, reads as under:"the departmental enquiry initiated against the writ petitioner is a culmination of a series of misdemeanours committed by the writ petitioner despite repeated cautions and warnings given by his superior officers from time to time. Mitra has relied for explaining the delay in initiating the proceeding, reads as under:"the departmental enquiry initiated against the writ petitioner is a culmination of a series of misdemeanours committed by the writ petitioner despite repeated cautions and warnings given by his superior officers from time to time. As will appear from the facts hereinafter stated, the writ petitioner has a history of insubordination, indiscipline and reckless conduct prejudicing the interests of the Bank. His past conduct and antecedents demonstrate that the Bank was really left with no alternative but to initiate a departmental enquiry after the repeated warnings, notices and cautions failed to elicit any constructive response whatsoever and even prestigious constituents of the bank started to complain about the conduct of the writ petitioner. " ( 7 ) IN its opposition the bank has given a long list of the acts of misdemeanour, misconduct, and insubordination, allegedly committed by the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner indulged in such activities during the period from July 8, 1981 to February 19, 2004. The total number of such acts is 97 (ninetyseven ). The first ever proceeding has, however, been initiated against him by the impugned charge-sheet, in which allegations have been made regarding his committing acts of misconduct on September 15, 1999, december 15, 1999, and in March, April and june 2000. According to the bank, though till before September 15, 1999 the petitioner had committed as many as 40 (forty) acts of misconduct, he was let off with warnings and cautions only. ( 8 ) A host of questions have remained unanswered in the opposition of the bank. Why no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, if in the past he had indulged in numerous acts of grave misconduct? If his past acts had been dealt with only by giving warnings and issuing caution letters, then what are the reasons for suddenly raking up in december 2003, certain incidents allegedly happened in 1999 and 2000? When the petitioner was asking for enquiry into certain alleged events, why the bank remained silent? according to the petitioner, the charge-sheet dated September 15, 2003 submitted by the police against the manager and three other employees of the Malda branch of the bank is the sole cause of the disciplinary proceeding against him. When the petitioner was asking for enquiry into certain alleged events, why the bank remained silent? according to the petitioner, the charge-sheet dated September 15, 2003 submitted by the police against the manager and three other employees of the Malda branch of the bank is the sole cause of the disciplinary proceeding against him. ( 9 ) IN my view, the nature of the allegations made in the charge- sheet, its proximity to the charge-sheet submitted by the police, and the other attendant facts and circumstances are such, that the decision to initiate the proceeding on the aforementioned 5 (five) charges, mixing them with 5 (five) more vague charges, two of them based on alleged recent incidents, cannot pass the test of fairness in the action of the disciplinary authority. ( 10 ) ALLEGATIONS made under Items 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the charge-sheet read as under: 2. You are in the habit of refusing signing the office orders delivered by the Branch manager allocating official jobs to you, for which act of yours, you have been frequently advised by the Bank not to resort to such irregular practices. 3. You are in the habit of leaving office early very frequently without prior permission of the Competent Authority for which proportionate salary and allowances have been recovered from you, under due intimation to you and advising you to attend to your work properly and not leave office without completing the works allotted to you. However, you are still in the habit of resorting to such irregular practices despite all the communications from the Bank, in utter disregard of the same. 7. We have also received a complaint from malda Merchants' Chamber of Commerce vide their letter dated November 29, 2003 alleging your misbehaviour with them and disturbing the conducive business environment of the Bank, insisting the Bank to initiate necessary action against you. 8. You had also discounted withdrawal slip without maintaining sufficient funds in your account for which Regional Office (Non metro), Kolkata had to issue a circular memo to all its branches advising them not to evince any interest in the instruments drawn by you for discounting. 9. You have remained unauthorisedly absent on many occasions since beginning of the year 2003, the latest being since december 1, 2003, for which you have been advised by the branch to report for duty immediately. 9. You have remained unauthorisedly absent on many occasions since beginning of the year 2003, the latest being since december 1, 2003, for which you have been advised by the branch to report for duty immediately. ( 11 ) TO my mind, the disciplinary authority should not have resurrected the alleged incidents of 1999 and 2000, in December 2003, when they had been consciously burried by the bank. On the admitted facts, it cannot be said that the ripples created by the police charge-sheet are not visible. Rule of fairnes demanded that in the wake of the charge-sheet in the criminal case, the bank, as employer, distanced itself from December 15, 1999 incident. It failed to do so. The failure has produced obvious results, promiscuous allegations, dead and live, wrapped in mysterious vagueness. Purpose of justice will be totally defeated, if on such facts, the bank is now permitted to undertake its intended postmortem through or the skeletons of the alleged dead events. ( 12 ) AS to the allegations made under Items 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the charge-sheet, I, however, find that there is no reason why the bank should not be permitted to proceed to enquire into them. The charges are based on records of the bank, apart from the fact that they are of recent origin. They, however, suffer from apparently curable vagueness. So before proceeding to enquire into them the disciplinary authority must remove their vagueness. ( 13 ) I thus find that while charges under items 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 of the charge-sheet must survive the challenge thrown by the petitioner, those under its Items 1,4,5,6 and 10 should be quashed. ( 14 ) MR. Talukdar's next contention is this. The petitioner applied on February 13, 2004 for permitting his lawyer to act as his defence representative, but by letter dated February 19, 2002 the enquiry officer informed that the bank did not give the permission. Since inspite of best efforts the petitioner could not make any employee or officer of the bank agree to help him in the enquiry, for the ends of justice the disciplinary authority should have permitted him to take help of a legal practitioner. ( 15 ) MR. Since inspite of best efforts the petitioner could not make any employee or officer of the bank agree to help him in the enquiry, for the ends of justice the disciplinary authority should have permitted him to take help of a legal practitioner. ( 15 ) MR. Mitra submits that as will appear from the allegations made in the charge-sheet, the petitioner is not likely to face any complicated questions of law or fact in the enquiry, and he is also not pitted against a legally trained presenting officer; and hence there was no reason to permit him the service of a lawyer as defence representative. ( 16 ) THE decision of the bank does not show the reasons why it decided not to permit the petitioner to be defended by a lawyer. Clause 12 of the settlement provides that in the situations specified the employee proceeded against shall be permitted to be defended by a lawyer. It appears from the provision that granting permission would rather be the rule, and refusal an exception. When the provision does not specify the cases fit for permission, or the grounds on which permission is to be refused, the disciplinary authority cannot refuse it in the absence of compelling reasons for refusal. The fact situation of the petitioner's case warranted a liberal consideration, of his prayer. The bank, however, proceeded casually. Hence I am of the view that the disciplinary authority should consider afresh the petitioner's prayer for engaging a lawyer in the enquiry to defend him. ( 17 ) MR. Talukdar's last submission is this. The enquiry officer is biased. The enquiry began on January 13, 2004; and after February 28, 2004, till May 29, 2004 the enquiry officer remained completely silent, and thereafter suddenly by notice dated June 9, 2004 he expressed his intention to proceed with day-to-day enquiry. It is thus apparent that in the hands of the enquiry officer, who is an officer of the bank, the petitioner will not get a fair deal. It is thus apparent that in the hands of the enquiry officer, who is an officer of the bank, the petitioner will not get a fair deal. Since provisions of clause 14 of the settlement do not prohibit appointment of an outsider as enquiry officer, and the decisions reported at Central Bank of India v. C. Bernard 1991 (1) SCC 319 ; A. K. Selhi v. Union of India 1968 Lab IC 24 also approved such appointment, in this case the enquiry should be conducted by a person not connected with the bank. ( 18 ) MR. Mitra submits that no case has been made out to show that the enquiry officer is biased. According to him in view of provisions of Clause 14 no person unconnected with the bank can be appointed as enquiry officer. ( 19 ) I do not find any force in the contention that since the relevant provision does not prohibit appointment of a third person as enquiry officer, the bank should appoint one. In the absence of any legal right available, the petitioner cannot ask for a third person as enquiry officer. I do not see how the decisions help the petitioner. Clause 14 of the settlement clearly provides that if the disciplinary authority does not conduct the enquiry himself, then he will appoint another officer as the enquiry officer. The expression 'another officer' by necessary implication means that the person appointed must be an officer of the bank. So without doing violence to the specific provision, whereby the parties are bound, no direction can be given to appoint an outsider as the enquiry officer. ( 20 ) HOWEVER, since the bank has shown a good gesture, in view of the suggestion given by this Court, that to remove all apprehensions from the mind of the petitioner it is agreeable to change the enquiry officer, and has given a list of four persons to this Court, I am pi the view that ends of justice would be served, if the present enquiry officer is changed, and the first person in the list, viz. N. Krishnamurthy Scale-IV Chief Officer, an officer attached to the conduct and disciplinary cell of the central office of the bank, is appointed the enquiry officer. ( 21 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of by the order following. N. Krishnamurthy Scale-IV Chief Officer, an officer attached to the conduct and disciplinary cell of the central office of the bank, is appointed the enquiry officer. ( 21 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of by the order following. The charge-sheet is quashed with respect to the charges levelled in its Items 1,4,5,6 and 10. The bank will be free to proceed with the charges levelled in its Items 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9, only after removing their vagueness. After the statement of imputations, prepared for removing the vagueness, is supplied to the petitioner with list of documents and witnesses, if any, he shall be given an opportunity to submit fresh statement of defence. Simultaneously the bank shall take the fresh decision regarding permission to the petitioner to be defended by a lawyer in the enquiry that will be conducted from the initial stage by Shri N. Krishnamurthy, scale-IV Chief Officer, attached to the conduct and disciplinary cell of the central office of the bank. The proceeding shall be concluded within six months (as prayed for ). Subsistence allowance, including arrears, if any, shall be duly paid to the petitioner in terms of provisions of the settlement from the Malda branch of the bank. The petitioner shall fully co-operate, and within a week shall submit his address for service of all notices and orders on him. ( 22 ) THE application (CAN No. 5891 of 2004) shall be deemed to be disposed of. There will be no order for costs. ( 23 ) URGENT certified Xerox copy of this judgment and order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for.