Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna

JUDGMENT

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 311 of 2021, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said Appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by the Respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the "original writ Petitioner") and directed the Appellant Bank to allow the original writ Petitioner to be represented by a retired employee of the Bank in the departmental inquiry, the Appellant Bank has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

2.1. That the Respondent herein - original writ Petitioner was working as Cashier - cum - Clerk (office Assistant). While working as a Branch Manager is alleged to had committed certain irregularities amounting to misconduct. A show cause notice was issued by the Bank dated 24.4.2019 whereby it was stated that while working at Rawastar Branch, he had committed irregularities while granting loans to farmers/villagers under the loan scheme and he did not take adequate precautions and without written mandates of borrowers, he transferred the loan amount in favour of another person and had thus committed misconduct. One another similar show cause notice was issued on dated 24.6.2019. Departmental Inquiry was initiated against him. A chargesheet dated 1.11.2019 was served upon the original writ Petitioner by the Bank in terms of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulation, 2010"). A written reply was submitted by the original writ Petitioner to the chargesheet issued. He denied the charges leveled against him. Not satisfied with the reply, the Bank initiated departmental inquiry. One Shri K.C. Gupta was appointed as an Enquirer Officer. An opportunity was afforded to the original writ Petitioner to take assistance of a defence representative (hereinafter referred to as "DR") in accordance with Regulation, 2010 as also in accordance with guidelines issued by the Bank. However, the original writ Petitioner informed the Enquiry Officer that he may be allowed to defend himself in the inquiry through a legal practitioner. Keeping in view the restrictions Under Regulation 44 of the Regulation, 2010 on engagement of legal practitioner during the inquiry, vide communication dated 17.3.2020, his request permitting him to defend himself through a legal practitioner came to be declined by the Enquiry Officer. A request was made to the Disciplinary Authority by the original writ Petitioner permitting him to engage a legal practitioner as his Dr. Having considered that no complicated legal question has been involved in the matter and the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is neither Law Officer nor a legal practitioner and keeping in mind the Regulation 44 of Regulation, 2010 on engagement of legal practitioner during the inquiry, the request to permit him to represent through legal practitioner came to be declined by the Disciplinary Authority, which was communicated to him vide communication dated 27.5.2020. Again a request was made by the original writ Petitioner to permit him to engage a legal practitioner as his DR in the inquiry proceedings, which again came to be rejected. During the inquiry proceedings on 11.08.2020, the original writ Petitioner submitted a conse........