WP(C) 6429/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.C. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Bank. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 05.08.09 (Annexure-5) by whi ch the Bank authority appointed the particular enquiry officer to enquire into t he charge levelled against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 29.05.2010. Ac cording to the petitioner, the enquiry officer so appointed being a retired ban k officer cannot act as an enquiry officer in view of the provisions of the Regu lation 6 (ii) and (iii) of the United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Conduct ) Regulations, 1976 in terms of which it is either the disciplinary authority or a public servant who is authorised to enquire into to prove the charge sheet. O n the other hand, the respondent Bank has placed reliance on the Annexure-B Circ ular dated 18.04.2002 permitting the Bank to appoint enquiry officer from amongs t the retired Bank employees. According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the peti tioner the said circular being in conflict with the Regulation cannot override t he provision of the Regulation. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the ex pression of public servant appearing in the aforesaid Regulation does not mean public servant as defined under Section 21 of the IPC. He also submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of the enquiry officer, he will b e entitled to agitate his grievance even after the completion of the enquiry pro ceeding. Considering the matter in its entirety, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Bank to take appropriate decision in the matter strict ly in accordance with law and thereafter to proceed with the enquiry relating to the petitioner. The petitioner shall participate in the enquiry proceeding with out prejudice to his rights and contention.