AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
The present appeal is preferred after the appellants had filed an application seeking review of the order of the learned Single Judge. The review petition, filed in the year 2014, was dismissed on 02.07.2018; and, thereafter, the present appeal came to be filed in January, 2019. The delay, from the date on which the review petition was dismissed till the appeal was filed, is of around five months. Since the order under appeal came to be passed without giving the appellants herein an opportunity of filing their counter affidavit, we are satisfied that the appellants should not be non-suited merely on the ground of delay. The delay is, accordingly, condoned.
Heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the respondent and, with their consent, this Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.
This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 531 of 2013 dated 18.09.2013. The respondent-writ petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a mandamus to the respondents to furnish certain documents to him.
In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge held that, in compliance with principles of natural justice, any document, on which the department was relying upon, should have been given to the petitioner so that he could rebut it; and the learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that he had no objection in supplying the relevant documents to the petitioner on which the Bank/Department was relying upon. While we would have refrained from entertaining this appeal, since the learned counsel for the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) appears to have expressed his no objection for the relevant documents to be supplied, Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the concession, if at all, is confined only to the supply of documents, and not with regards the respondent-writ petitioner's request that he be permitted to engage any person to assist him before the enquiry committee; and the learned Single Judge had erred in directing the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) to permit a suitable person, of the petitioner's choice, to be given to him to assist in the enquiry, in order to maintain proper transparency of the said enquiry, and to comply with principles of natural justice; this direction was issued without the appellants' consent, and at the stage of admission of the writ petition, without giving the appellants an opportunity of being heard.
Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel, would submit that, in term of Rule 68 (2) (vii) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, assistance can only be sought of an officer as defined in Rule 3 (m) of the Rules; and the charge-sheeted employee was not entitled to engage a legal practitioner, or any other person, for that purpose.
The State Bank of India Officers Service Rules were made in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 43 (1) of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, and have statutory force. Rule 3 (m) of the said Rules defines an officer to mean a person fitted into, or appointed to or promoted to, any of the grades specified in Rule 4 including a specialist or technical person so fitted or promoted or appointed, and any other employee or adviser to whom the provisions of these Rules have been made applicable under Rule 2. Rule 2 relates to officers to whom the Rules would apply. It does appear that it is only those officers, specified in Rule 3 r/w Rule 2 & 4, whose assistance the delinquent officer can take as his representative in the departmental enquiry.
As these Rules were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, and as the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission, suffice it to set-aside the order under appeal, and restore WPSS No. 531 of 2013 to file. Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellants, states that he would file a counter affidavit in the writ petition within two weeks from today. As the writ petition relates to the year 2013, and all matters of the year 2014 and prior thereto are identified for expeditious disposal, we request the learned Single Judge to consider taking up the writ petition for an early hearing.
The Special Appeal stands disposed of, accordingly. No costs.