C.W.P. No. 5791 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5791 of 2009 Decided on : 04-05-2009 Balwant Singh Bhatia ....Petitioner VERSUS Sutlej Gramin Bank, Bathinda and others. ....Respondents CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL. Present:- Mr. Rajnish K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the respondents. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J (Oral). The petitioner against whom a departmental enquiry is going on, has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing directions to the respondents for setting aside the letter dated 30.3.2009 (Annexure P-3), whereby the respondent No.3 has declined the request of the petitioner to continue with the services of existing defence representative Sh. Chand Singh and further the letter dated 11.4.2009 (Annexure P-7) issued by respondent No.1, whereby request of the petitioner to change the Enquiry Officer has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner C.W.P. No. 5791 of 2009 -2- confined his prayer only with regard to the letter dated 30.3.2009,whereby respondent No.3 has declined the request of the petitioner to continue with the services of existing defence representative. Learned counsel has submitted that his defence representative Shri Chand Singh has participated in the enquiry from the very beginning and now has retired on 31.3.2009 and only on that account, the Enquiry Officer is not permitting him to represent the petitioner in the enquiry. Learned counsel for the respondents states that though as per the rules being framed by the sponsored Bank, which the respondent-Bank is following, only an existing employee can be a defence representative of the delinquent employee, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Enquiry Officer will permit the petitioner to avail the services of Shri Chand Singh as his defence representative in the enquiry as a special concession. In view of the said statement made by the counsel for the respondents, prayer made in this petition has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that because the enquiry is pending since long, therefore, the Enquiry Officer be directed to complete the enquiry within a period of three months. In this regard, counsel for the respondents submits that because of the conduct of the petitioner himself, the proceedings in the departmental enquiry have been delayed. He further states that if the petitioner appears before the Enquiry Officer on the dates fixed, the Enquiry Officer will complete the enquiry within a period of three months. In view of this, this petition is disposed of with a direction to C.W.P. No. 5791 of 2009 -3- the Enquiry Officer to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months. Dasti on payment. 4th May, 2009. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) Monika JUDGE