Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, K. Suja, a Chief Manager at Indian Bank, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the proceedings dated 02.06.2018 and seeking consequential reliefs. She sought to quash the said proceedings and to direct the respondent bank to defer the departmental enquiry initiated against her until the conclusion of the criminal case pending as C.C.No.22 of 2014 before the 12th CBI Court, Chennai. Additionally, she prayed for lawyer assistance to defend herself in the enquiry. The charge memo was issued on 21.02.2017 on the ground that she failed to disclose her assets and liabilities as required under the Indian Bank Officers Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The petitioner was not permitted to engage a legal practitioner and instead was provided with a defence assistant from within the bank. However, that assistant was unable to attend the enquiry, leading to the proceedings being conducted exparte. The petitioner had earlier challenged the exparte enquiry by filing W.P.No.12739 of 2018. In the present petition, the core legal issues revolved around the continuation of departmental proceedings while a criminal case on the same or similar facts was pending and the denial of the right to be defended by a legal practitioner. The judgment text provided, however, is incomplete and does not contain the court's reasoning or ultimate decision on these issues. Therefore, the final outcome of the writ petition remains unknown.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry and Criminal Proceedings - Concurrent Proceedings - Indian Bank Officers Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - The petitioner, a Chief Manager, was issued a charge memo for non-disclosure of assets and liabilities and was denied legal representation; a defence assistant from the bank failed to attend, resulting in an exparte enquiry. The petitioner sought deferment of the departmental enquiry pending the outcome of the criminal case and permission to engage a lawyer. The court's analysis and final direction are not recorded in the available excerpt (Paras 3, 3.1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the departmental enquiry should be deferred pending conclusion of the criminal case; Whether the denial of a lawyer and the conduct of the enquiry exparte was valid
