Disposed

Rajendra Singh v. Union Of India and Others

Uttarakhand HC14 Mar 2014WPSS/325/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a bank employee facing criminal and departmental proceedings, sought liberty to engage a lawyer from outside Uttarakhand despite rules requiring same-state representation. Court granted one-month liberty and stayed proceedings pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to engage representative from outside Uttarakhand within one month; departmental proceedings stayed until April 14, 2014.

Rajendra Singh Vs Union Of India and Others — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 325 of 2014

¶2

Sri Rajendra Singh … Petitioner

¶3

¶4

Union of India & others … Respondents

¶5

Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioner Mr. Vikas Pandey, Standing Counsel, present for the Union of India

¶6

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

¶7

The petitioner was a Head Cashier in Punjab National Bank, Branch Laksar, District Haridwar. A disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him where the allegations are serious in nature, such as misappropriation and embezzlement of Bank money. At the same time criminal proceeding has also been initiated against the petitioner in which chargesheet has been filed. Therefore, the petitioner is facing both the criminal proceedings as well as the departmental proceedings.

¶8

His application to the Bank was for engaging a lawyer for his defence, which has been rejected by the Bank on the ground that the Rules provides that a defence representative must be an employee of Bank of the same circle or the State. The petitioner states that he belongs to “Sirsa”, which is in the State of Haryana, and therefore, he cannot engage employee of the Bank for his defence, who belong to the same State i.e. Uttarakhand.

¶9

In view of above though the petitioner cannot be permitted to engage a lawyer in a departmental proceedings, but it is also true that he must be represented. The writ petition is hence disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner

¶10

¶11

to engage representative from outside the State of Uttarakhand as well. Purely in the interest of justice and fair play, one month time is given to the petitioner, which will start from today to engage any Bank employee as defence representative, though from outside the State of Uttarakhand.

¶12

Under the aforesaid circumstance, till 14.04.2014, departmental proceedings going on against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner does not give defence representative on or before 15.04.2014, the Department/Bank shall be at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner in the matter. No order as to costs.

¶13

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above order.

¶14

Let a copy of this order be supplied today to the counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

¶16

14.03.2014

¶17

Aswal

Rajendra Singh v. Union Of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh v. Union Of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Parwati Devi Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Beer Singh Rana Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Anand Singh Dangwal and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Umed Singh Vs Union Of India and Others

Man Mohan Singh Vs Union Of India and Others

Shaista Jamal Ansari Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others