Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010: Regn.44 – Misconduct – Departmental inquiry – Permission to engage any legal practitioner or retired employee of the bank as defence representative (DR) – Held: Regn.44 puts specific restriction on engagement of a legal practitioner and it provides that for the purpose of an enquiry under Regulation, 2010, the officer or employee shall not engage a legal practitioner without prior permission of the competent authority – Therefore, even availing the services of legal practitioner is not permissible without the leave of the competent authority – The Handbook of Vigilance Administration and Disciplinary Action (Handbook Procedure) has been approved by the Board of Directors and it is applicable to all the employees of the Bank – Clause 8 of the Handbook Procedure with respect to the D R specifically provides that DR should be serving official/employee from the Bank – The said Handbook Procedure is binding to all the employees of the Bank – Handbook Procedure can be said to be supplementary – Neither Regn.44 permits nor restricts engagement of an ex-employee of the Bank to be DR – Therefore, Clause 8.2 cannot be said to be in conflict with the provisions of Regulation, 2010 – Provisions of Regulation, 2010 and the provisions of Handbook Procedure are required to be read harmoniously, the result can be achieved without any violation of any of the provisions of Regulation, 2010 and the Handbook Procedure – Not permitting the delinquent officer to be represented through ex-employee of the Bank in the departmental enquiry cannot be said to be in any way in breach of principles of natural justice and / or it violates any of the rights of the delinquent officer – The only requirement is that delinquent officer must be given fair opportunity to represent his case and that there is no absolute right in his favour to be represented through the agent of his choice.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Regulation 44 puts specific restriction on engagement of a legal practitioner and it provides that for the purpose of an enquiry under Regulation, 2010, the Officer or Employee shall not engage a legal practitioner without prior permission of the competent authority. Therefore, even availing the services of legal practitioner is permissible with the leave of the competent authority. However, Regulation does not specifically provides that an employee can avail the services of any outsider and/or ex-employee of the Bank as DR. The Handbook Procedure has been approved by the Board of Directors and it is applicable to all the employees of the Bank. Clause 8 is with respect to the D R , it specifically provides that DR should be serving official /employee from the Bank. The said Handbook Procedure is binding to all the employees of the Bank. The High Court has considered Regulation 44 of the Regulation, 2010, however has not considered clause 8 of the Handbook Procedure on the ground that the same cannot be said to be supplementary. However, Handbook Procedure can be said to be supplementary. Neither Regulation 44 permits nor restricts engagement of an exemployee of the Bank to be DR. Therefore, Clause 8.2 cannot be said to be in conflict with the provisions of Regulation, 2010. Provisions of Regulation, 2010 and the provisions of Handbook Procedure are required to be read harmoniously, the result can be achieved without any violation of any of the provisions of Regulation, 2010 and the Handbook Procedure. The objects of Regulation 44 of Regulation, 2010 and Clause 8 of the Handbook Procedure seem to be to avoid any outsider including legal representative and / or even ex-employee of the Bank. There is no absolute right in favour of the delinquent officer’s to be represented in the departmental proceedings through the agent of his choice and the same can be restricted by the employer. [Para 7][194-C-D; 194-F-H; 195-A-C]
2. The Bank has justified its action of not permitting exemployee of the Bank as DR and according to the Bank, the exemployee who themselves may have been subject of a disciplinary enquiry/ chargesheet / dismissed from service; the ex-employee might be a part of vigilance or audit sections who come across a lot of information of confidential nature and therefore, if they are allowed to be DR in the departmental proceedings, which would result in grave injustice; the solemn nature of proceedings is taken away and would result in issues of orderliness as well as decorum when a disgruntled ex- employee is enabled to act as defence representative; they may adopt delay tactics in departmental enquiry and may not permit completion of department enquiry within six months as mandated by the CVC Circular and as per Vigilance Handbook adopted by the Bank. As per settled proposition of law in decisions referred to, the only requirement is that delinquent officer must be given fair opportunity to represent his case and that there is no absolute right in his favour to be represented through the agent of his choice. However, at the same time, if the charge is severe and complex nature, then request to be represented through a counsel can be considered keeping in mind Regulation 44 of Regulation, 2010 and if in a particular case, the same is denied, that can be ground to challenge the ultimate outcome of the departmental enquiry. However, as a matter of right in each and every case, irrespective of whether charges is severe and complex nature or not, the employee as a matter of right cannot pray that he may be permitted to represent through the agent of his choice. [Para 8][195-D-G]
P. Raghava Kurup & Anr. v. V. Ananthakumari & Anr. (2007) 9 SCC 179 : [2007] 2 SCR 1058; N. Kalindi & Ors. v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd [1960] 3 SCR 407; National Seeds Corporation Limited v. K. V. Rama Reddy (2006) 11 SCC 645 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 725; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC 626 : [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 517; Cipla Limited & Ors v. Ripu Daman Bahnot & Anr. (1999) 4 SCC 188 : [1999] 2 SCR 582; Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Limited v. Ram Naresh Tripathi (1993) 2 SCC 115 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 559; Indian Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas Bank Officer’s Association and Another (2001) 9 SCC
540 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 554; Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd v. Workmen [1965] 2 SCR 139 – relied on.
Rakesh Singh v. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority and Another in Writ Appeal No. 64711 of 2013 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.