IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29169 of 2011 Between: Sri Ram Pandrangi … Petitioner And Andhra Bank, Rep.by its Chairman and Managing Director and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29169 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring all the proceedings commencing from the issuance of charge memo dated 31.05.2011, issued by the 2nd respondent and the resultant enquiry being conducted by the 3rd respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and contrary to the principles of natural justice and by nullifying the same direct the respondents to conduct enquiry by following the principles of natural justice and by permitting an outsider/public servant as defence counsel. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as Probationary Officer in Andhra Bank on 22.05.2009 and after undergoing training, he was posted at Pitapuram Colony and thereafter, transferred to Berhampur and he is working as Mrketing Officer. While the matter stood thus, he was placed under suspension vide letter dated 15.01.2011 by the 2nd respondent, Assistant General Manager, Andhra Bank, Berhampur, on certain acts and misconduct alleged to have committed by him. The Branch Manager of Kasibugga Branch gave a report to the Station Officer, Kasibugga on 20.04.2011, based on which, FIR No.157 of 2011 dated 20.04.2011 was registered under Section 420, 406 and 409 IPC and was remanded to judicial custody on 24.04.2011 and later on he was enlarged on bail on 28.04.2011. Till today, no charge sheet is filed by the police and the matter is under investigation. While the matter stood thus, he was issued charge sheet dated 31.05.2011 alleging certain misconduct for which, he submitted his explanation on 15.06.2011 refuting all the charges and also requested to supply certain documents mentioned there under for submitting an effective reply. But, those documents have not been given to him. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 30.06.2011, the 3rd respondent, Senior Manager, was appointed as Enquiry officer, who fixed the preliminary enquiry on 23.08.2011 at Hyderabad and the petitioner attended the same and requested him to permit an external defense assistant to defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings, since he does not know any officer of the bank and in fact approached all the trade union leaders and other senior officers to defend him and that they declined to do so since he made complaints against some of the senior officers of the bank, Kasibugga Branch, Zonal Office, who are the active members of the Officers’ Association. His request was turned down by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that ABOE (D&A) Regulations do not permit an outsider. As against the said denial, he made a representation to the disciplinary authority on 03.09.2011, which was rejected on 14.09.2011. The Enquiry Officer again fixed the date of hearing on 24.10.2011 at Kasibugga. The petitioner made representation to the appellate authority on 18.10.2011 and the appellate authority advised him to attend the enquiry. After the said communication, the Enquiry Officer fixed the enquiry on 24.10.2011. The petitioner stated that he fell sick and therefore, he sent a communication on 22.10.2011 to the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority but the enquiry proceedings were held while setting him ex parte. Questioning the said action, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the charge sheet, the Enquiry Officer issued notice asking the petitioner to appear before him for enquiry. Due to ill health of the petitioner, he could not attend the enquiry therefore, at the first instance only, the petitioner was set ex parte and proceeded with the enquiry, which is against principles of natural justice. He further submitted that when the petitioner would like to take the services of outsider officer to assist him in the matter, without considering his request, the Enquiry Officer proceeded further in the enquiry and asked the petitioner to submit his written arguments. He also brought to the notice of this Court with regard to the enquiry proceedings held on 24.10.2011, into the charges leveled against him, wherein the PO was advised to send his written arguments directly to CO immediately with a copy marked to EO and CO to submit his written arguments, so as to reach the EO on or before 29.10.2011. Besides the above all, he requested that the petitioner may be permitted to take the assistance of outsider, who has knowledge in the legal field. If the Enquiry Officer is permitted to proceed with the enquiry in aforesaid manner, what would remains is only that if the petitioner submits written arguments, the judgment will render, which invariably against the petitioner. Therefore, the enquiry proceedings held on 24.10.2011 may be set aside. On the other hand, Dr.K.Lakshminarasimha, learned standing counsel, appearing for the bank would submit that in spite of opportunity is given to the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer, he could not avail the same. He further submitted that there is no provision under the Regulations of the bank permitting the petitioner to take assistance of the outsider and the petitioner can always take the services of the officer of the bank to assist in the matter. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the enquiry proceedings held on 24.10.2011, it reveals that the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry in the absence of the petitioner and without giving ample opportunity to him. In that view of matter, the enquiry proceedings dated 24.10.2011 is liable to be set aside on the ground that the said enquiry is in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently the matter shall be remitted to the Enquiry Officer, so as to enable him to proceed with the enquiry, in accordance with law, duly giving ample opportunity to the petitioner. In view of the above, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, enquiry proceedings held on 24.10.2011 is set aside and directed the Enquiry Officer to issue notice to the petitioner, fixing a particular date for enquiry, so as to enable the petitioner to appear before him, and the petitioner is also directed to participate in the enquiry, with a view to avail opportunity provided by the Enquiry Officer. With the above direction this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 01.11.2011 Note: Furnish C.C. in a week. B/o. LSK