The Andaman And Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited And ANR v. P.K.Madhavan

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/11/2022 The Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited and another ... Appellants Vs.

P.K.Madhavan .....Respondent With MAT/12/2022 The Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited and another ... Appellants Vs.

Annamma John .....Respondent With MAT/14/2022 The Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited and another ... Appellants Vs.

Smt Abdul Liash .....Respondent Mr. Alisham Venkatesh ... for the appellants Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the respondent November 21, 2022 [SR] Item Nos.14,15&16 Party/parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title. The short point in these three appeals is the conduct of Disciplinary Proceedings (DP) against each of the respondents/who were the writ petitioners, by the appellants, which is the Andaman and Nicobar State Cooperative Bank Limited and others (for short 'the Bank').

The Hon'ble Single Benches have interpreted the concerned service Rule 81(1)(c) to be read in conformity with the principles governing Natural Justice by permitting each of the respondents to engage a Defence Assistant, who is not a lawyer. The Hon'ble Single Benches took the view that the appointment of such Defence Assistants by the respondents shall not amount to violation of Rule 81(1)(c) and shall also be in compliance with the principles of Natural Justice. Mr. Venkatesh, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/the Bank, submits that at no point of time any of the respondents approached the Bank with a prayer to appoint their Defence Assistants from outside, who is not a lawyer. It is submitted that such is the requirement of Rule 81(1)(c). Therefore, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Single Benches granted the relief to each of the respondents which was never sought for by them from the Disciplinary Authority of the Bank.

Mr. Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the Order impugned does not deserve any interference. Rather, the Disciplinary Proceeding (DP) should be allowed to move forward. It is pointed out that Rule 81(1)(c) provides for the situation noticed by the Hon'ble Single Benches (supra) where the Defence Assistant, who is not a lawyer, may be engaged with the consent of the Bank. In these three appeals, the Hon'ble Single Benches have permitted the engagement of Defence Assistants having read Rule 81(1)(c) holistically.

Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court does not find any reason to take a view different from the views taken by the Hon'ble Single Benches. Accordingly, the Orders impugned deserve no interference. The appellants/Bank shall be free to proceed with the Disciplinary Proceeding (DP) and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of communication of this Order.

MAT/11/2022, MAT/12/2022 and MAT/14/2022 stand accordingly disposed of.

All parties to act in terms of a copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order be supplied to the Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties upon compliance of usual formalities.

( Rabindranath Samanta, J. ) ( Subrata Talukdar, J. )