Annamma John v. Andaman And Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited And ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] ...

WPA/132/2022 Annamma John ... Petitioner Vs.

The Andaman & Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited and another... Respondents Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Alisham Venkatesh ... for the respondents August 25, 2022 [SR] Item No.4 The petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by a communication dated 20.4.2022 by the Managing Director of the concerned respondent-Bank by which the petitioner has been denied assistance of a Defence Assistant for the disciplinary proceedings which was initiated against the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing for the parties rely on Rule 81(i)(c) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Cooperative Societies Employees Services (Qualifications and Conditions of Service) Rules notified on 20th April, 2017.

As found in a similar matter being WPA/116/2022, this Court is of the view that since Rule 81 provides for due observance of the principles of natural justice, an employee should have the right of engaging a Defence Assistant who is not a lawyer or an Advocate in a disciplinary proceedings.

In the present case, admittedly, the respondent Bank does not have a Union and hence the petitioner does not have the first option of defending herself through a nominee of the Union. It is also the petitioner's case that the co-workers are not willing to act as a Defence Assistant since the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated by the Managing Director of the Bank.

In view of the practical difficulties as also the mandate to preserve the principles of natural justice and give the opportunity to the petitioner to effectively defend herself in the disciplinary proceedings, this Court is inclined to grant the relief prayed for.

The impugned letter merely states that the petitioner cannot be permitted to defend herself by engaging a lawyer or an Advocate. This Court finds that the petitioner's application of 12th April, 2022 does not give the name of the proposed Defence Assistant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further states that the proposed Defence Assistant is not a lawyer or an Advocate.

Considering all the relevant facts, WPA/132/2022 is disposed of by quashing the impugned Bank to allow the petitioner to defend herself in the disciplinary proceedings by a Defence Assistant who is not a lawyer/Advocate since this would preserve the objective of Rule 81 where an employee is to given an adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.)