2022 LiveLaw (SC) 6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
M.R. SHAH; SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
CIVIL APPEAL No. 7451 of 2021; January, 04 2022
The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) & Anr.
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Meena & Anr.
Disciplinary Proceedings- 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)
Disciplinary Proceedings- The only requirement is that a
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. (Para 8)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rishabh Sancheti, Adv. Ms. Padma Priya, Adv. Mr.
Anchit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Sushant Rao, Adv. Mr. Shubhankar Singh,Adv. Mr.
K. Paari Vendhan, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Rashmi Singh, AOR
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:

1
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

2
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 consent letter of one Shri Mahesh Kumar Atal to be
engaged as his DR. The said request was turned down. Again a request
was made to permit him to engage any legal practitioner or any
retired officer from the Bank as his DR, which again came to be turned
down by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the order passed by
the Disciplinary Authority dated 19.08.2020, the original writ petitioner
approached the High Court by way of SB Civil Writ Petition No.8363 of 2020
inter alia, praying that he may be permitted to engage any legal
practitioner or retired officer of the Bank as his DR. The said writ petition was
opposed by the Bank. Regulation 44 of Regulation, 2010 and the Circular
dated 31.01.2014 as also the guidelines issued by the Bank in respect
of disciplinary proceeding that no outsider, not associated with the
Bank can be permitted to act as a DR were pressed into service.
That by judgment and order dated 28.1.2021, the learned Single Judge
allowed the said writ petition and directed the Bank to permit the
original writ petitioner to be represented through retired officer of the
Bank in the disciplinary proceedings. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the
Bank preferred appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
By impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court
has dismissed the said appeal mainly on the ground that since
circular dated 31.1.2014 and the Regulation 8.2 did not prohibit the
utilization of the services of ex- employee of the Bank, therefore,
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is not to be
interfered with.
2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court directing the Bank to permit the
original petitioner to be represented through retired officer of the
Bank in the disciplinary proceedings, the Bank has preferred present
appeal.
3. Shri Rishabh Sancheti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the High Court has committed a grave error in directing the
appellant Bank to permit the respondent original writ petitioner to be

3
represented through retired officer of the Bank in the disciplinary
proceedings.
3.1. It is submitted that the High Court has not at all adverted to Regulation
8.2 of the Handbook of Vigilance Administration & Disciplinary Action
(hereinafter referred to as the “Handbook Procedure”) which has been
duly approved by the Board of the Bank and applicable to all kind of
matters.
3.2. It is vehemently submitted that Regulation 8.2 of the Handbook
Procedure specifically provides that the defence representative should be
serving official / employee from the Bank. It is submitted that the
provisions of Handbook Procedure are binding on all the employees
and applicable to all kind of matters. It is submitted that even there was
no challenge to Regulation 8 of the Handbook Procedure by the original
writ petitioner.
3.3. It is further submitted that High Court has not properly appreciated
the fact that provisions of Regulation, 2010 are to be read with
Handbook provisions in a harmonious manner.
3.4. It is further submitted that High Court has erred in construing
Regulation 44 as permitting outsiders into a disciplinary inquiry. It is
submitted that in fact Regulation 44 restricts legal practitioner to be DR
without prior permission. It is submitted that Regulation 44 can in no
manner can be construed to mean that it permits all outsiders
except lawyers. It is submitted that this is so, since the basic
principle is that an employee has no right to representation in the
departmental proceedings by another person or a lawyer unless the
Service Rules specifically provides for the same. It is submitted that right
to representation is available only to the extent specifically provided for
in the Rules. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the
case of P. Raghava Kurup & Anr . v. V. An antha kumari & Anr.
reported in (2007) 9 SCC 179; N. Kalindi & Ors. v. Tata
Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd reported in (1960) 3 SCR 407;
National Seeds Corporation Limited vs. K.V. Rama Reddy
reported in (2006) 11 SCC 645 and Bharat Petroleum
Corporation L im i ted v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union &
Ors. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 626.

4
3.5. It is submitted that right to representation in the inquiry can be
restricted, controlled or regulated by the Statute, Service Rules, Regulations
or Standing Orders and the extent of representation in any enquiry has
to be in accordance with the Statute, Service Rules, Regulations or
Standing Orders etc. In support of above submission, reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Ci p la L i m ited &
O rs v. Ripu Daman Bahnot & Anr. reported in (1999) 4 SCC 188; in
the case of Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Limited v. Ram Naresh
Tripathi reported in (1993) 2 SCC 115 and in the case of Indian
Overseas Bank vs. Indian Overseas Bank Officer’s Association
and Another reported in (2001) 9 SCC 540.
3.6. It is further submitted that as held by this Court in the case of
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra) there should be
minimum intervention of any outsider / legal practitioner in
departmental proceedings and the choice, if granted by the Statute,
Service Rules, Regulations or Standing Orders, cannot be allowed to
travel beyond the Statutes / Service Rules/ Regulations/ Standing
Orders.
3.7. It is submitted that in the present case the service conditions of the
employee of the bank are governed by Regulation, 2010, which do
not contain any provision enabling the Candidate under the enquiry
to have any defence representative outside the employees of the Bank. It
is submitted that the object and purpose of Regulation 44 was to
keep a check on frivolous and unnecessary request made for legal
practitioner if the facts and situation do not demand so. It is
submitted that Handbook Procedure issued by the Vigilance
Department of the Bank which was duly approved by the Board also
do not allow the employee to choose any outsider or a legal practitioner as his
defence representative and the same is expressly provided under Clause 8
of Chapter VIII of the Handbook Procedure.
3.8. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order has
created an anomalous situation where:
I. Ex-employees who themselves may have been subject of a
disciplinary enquiry/ chargesheeted / dismissed from service are also
enabled to act as Defence Representatives.

5
II. Ex-employees who were part of Vigilance or Audit Sections who
come across a lot of information of confidential nature are enabled to
act as Defence Representatives, which would result in grave injustice.
III. 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 a Defence Representative. CVC
Circular no.19.9.2021 dated 6.10.2021 prescribes the time limit for
completion of departmental enquiry within 6 months and the same has
adopted in the Vigilance Handbook page no.55 para 7.2. If an outsider
gets permitted completion of departmental inquiry within prescribed time
limit shall be a problem.
IV. It is a matter of record that presently in almost all the pending
Disciplinary enquiries, most of the Employees- under- enquiry are now
asking for retired officials to act as Drs.
3.9. It is submitted that aforesaid aspect has not at all been considered by
the High Court while permitting the respondent employee to allow
ex-employee as his DR.
Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that
Regulation 44 of the Regulation 2020 do not bar engagement of
retired employee of the Bank to act as a DR. It is submitted that the
only bar under the Rules and the Regulation is with regard to
appointment of legal practitioner as a DR without permission of the
Bank. It is submitted that therefore, the High Court has rightly
directed the Bank to permit the respondent employee to avail service
of the retired employee of the Bank as defence representative.
4.1. It is submitted that Handbook of Vigilance Administration and
Disciplinary Action dated 15.3.2019 are not binding rules or
guidelines and are merely directory in nature.
4.2. It is submitted that on conjoint reading of Clause 7.2 and
Clause 8.2 of Handbook Procedure would mean that only officer who is
junior to the presenting officer and Enquiry Officer can be appointed as
DR. It is submitted that this would result in gross miscarriage of
justice and in violation of principles of natural justice.

6
4.3. It is submitted that judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant shall not be applicable to the facts of the present case as every
bank has its own Rules and Regulations. It is submitted that in the present
case there is no specific bar in the service regulation in engaging retired
employee of the Bank as defence representative. It is submitted that
therefore, in absence of any specific bar and considering the Regulation
44, the High Court has not committed any error.
4.4. It is submitted that similar question came up for determination before
the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Rakesh Singh vs. Chairman
and Disciplinary Authority and Another in Writ Appeal No. 64711 of
2013 wherein the High Court has held that in absence of any
specific bar in the Regulation, the denial of the right to engage a
retired employee of the Bank as defence representative is not
justified. It is submitted that said judgment of the Allahabad High Court has
been affirmed by this Court and the SLP against the said judgment and
order has been dismissed.
Making the above submissions and relying upon the above
decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. By
the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has permitted the
respondent employee who is facing disciplinary proceedings to
represent through ex-employee of the Bank. While permitting the
respondent employee, the High Court while construing Regulation 44
of Regulation, 2010 has observed that the Regulation 44 only restricts
representation by a legal practitioner, and even that too is permissible
of course with the leave to the competent authority, and there is no
complete or absolute bar even on engaging a lawyer, the employee
cannot be restrained from availing services of retired employee of a
Bank. However, it was the specific case on behalf of the Bank that in
view of circular dated 31.01.2014 and clause 8.2 of the Handbook
Procedure, the DR should be a serving official / employee from the
Bank. Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration
of this Court is whether the respondent employee, as a matter of
right is entitled to avail the services of an Ex- employee of the Bank
as his DR in the departmental proceedings ?

7
6. While considering the aforesaid issue, few decisions of this Court on
the right of the employee to make representation in the Departmental
Proceedings are required to be referred to.
6.1. In the case of Kalindi and Ors (supra), it is observed and held
that ordinarily in inquiries before domestic tribunals the person accused
of any misconduct conducts his own case and therefore, it is not
possible to accept the argument that natural justice ex-facie demands that
in the case the enquiries into a chargesheet of misconduct against a
workman he should be represented by a member of his Union; though
of-course an employer in his discretion can and may allow his employee
to avail himself of such assistance. The dictum of this decision has
been subsequently elucidated.
6.2. In the case of the Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd v.
Workmen reported in (1965) 2 SCR 139, after considering its earlier
decision in the case of Kalindri and ors (supra), it is observed and
held that there is no per se right to representation in the
departmental proceedings through a representative through own union
unless the company by its Standing Order recognized such a right. It is
observed that refusal to allow representation by any Union unless the
Standing Orders confer that right does not vitiate the proceedings. It is
further observed that in holding domestic enquiries, reasonable
opportunity should be given to the delinquent employees to meet the
charge framed against them and it is desirable that at such an
enquiry the employee should be given liberty to represent their case by
persons of their choice, if there is no standing order against such a
course being adopted and if there is nothing otherwise objectionable in
the said request. It is further observed that denial of such an
opportunity cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural
justice.
6.3. In the case of Cipla Ltd. and Ors (supra), it is observed and held as
under:
“13. In N. Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co Ltd, it was held that a workman
against whom a departmental enquiry is held by the Management has no right to
be represented at such enquiry by an outsider, not even by a representative of his Union
though the Management may in its discretion allow the employee to avail of such
assistance. So also in Dunlop Rubber Company vs. Workmen, 1965 (2) SCR
139 = AIR 1965 SC 1392 = 1965 (1) LLJ 426, it was laid down that an employee
has no right to be represented in the disciplinary proceedings by another person

8
unless the Service Rules specifically provided for the same. A Three-Judge Bench
of this Court inCrescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi, (1993)
2 SCC 115 = 1992 Suppl. (3) SCR 559, laid down that the right to be represented in
the departmental proceedings initiated against a delinquent employee can be
regulated or restricted by the Management or by the Service Rules. It was held
that the right to be represented by an advocate in the departmental proceedings
can be restricted and regulated by statutes or by the Service Rules including the
Standing Orders, applicable to the employee concerned. The whole case law was
reviewed by this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Maharashtra Genl.
Kamgar Union & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 626, and it was held that a delinquent
employee has no right to be represented by an advocate in the departmental
proceedings and that if a right to be represented by a co-workman is given to him, the
departmental proceedings would not be bad only for the reason that the
assistance of an advocate was not provided to him.”
6.4. In the case of Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. (supra), it is
observed and held that in the departmental proceedings right to be
represented through counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or
regulated by statute, rules, regulations or Standing Orders. A
delinquent has no right to be represented through counsel or agent
unless the law specifically confers such a right. The requirement of
the rule of natural justice insofar as the delinquent's right of hearing is
concerned, cannot and does not extend to a right to be represented
through counsel or agent. In the case before this Court, the
delinquent's right to representation was regulated by the Standing
Orders which permitted a clerk or a workman working with him in
the same department to represent him and said right stood expanded
permitting representation through an officer, staff-member or a
member of the Union, on being authorised by the State Government.
Holding that the same is permissible and cannot be said to be in
violation of principles of natural justice, it is observed that the object and
purpose of such provisions are to ensure that the domestic enquiry is
completed with despatch and is not prolonged endlessly; secondly, when the
person defending the delinquent is from the department or
establishment in which the delinquent is working he would be well
conversant with the working of that department and the relevant rules
and would, therefore, be able to render satisfactory service to the delinquent.
In the present case also clause 8 permits representation through serving
officials / employee from the Bank.

9
6.5. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of
Bh arat Pet ro leu m Co rp orat i on L im it ed (supra) as well as in the
case of National Sees Corporation Limited (supra).
6.6. In the case of Indian Overseas Bank (supra), it is observed and held
that law does not concede an absolute right of representation to an
employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that there
is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or
regulation and standing orders, specifically recognize such a right and
provide for such representation.
7. Applying law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to
the facts of the case on hand, the respondent employee / respondent
delinquent has no absolute right to avail the services by ex-employee
of the Bank as his DR in the departmental proceedings. It is true
that 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. Therefore, Regulation, 2010
neither restricts nor permits availing the services of any outsider and /
or ex-employee of the Bank as DR and to that extent Regulation is
silent. If the reasoning of the High Court is considered, the High Court is of
the opinion that as there is no complete or absolute bar even on engaging
a lawyer, it is difficult to accept that a retired employee of the Bank cannot be
engaged to represent a delinquent officer in the departmental inquiry.
However, the High Court has not appreciated the effect of the
Handbook. As per Clause 8 of the Handbook Procedure which has been
approved by the Board of Directors and it is applicable to all the
employees of the Bank and Clause 8 is with respect to the defence
representative, it specifically provides that DR should be serving official /
employee from the Bank. The said Handbook Procedure which has
been approved by the Board of Directors of the Bank 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

10
be said to be supplementary. However, we are of the opinion that
Handbook Procedure can be said to be supplementary. The same
cannot be said to be in conflict with the Regulation 44 of Regulation,
2010. As observed herein above, neither Regulation 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. 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. At the cost of
repetition, it is observed that 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.
8. As per the Bank there is a justification also to permit the
delinquent officer to be represented in the departmental proceedings
through serving official / employee from the Bank only. The Bank has
justified its action of not permitting ex-employee of the Bank as DR
and according to the Bank, the ex-employee 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. For all the aforesaid reasons 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. As per settled proposition of law
and as observed herein above, in decisions referred to herein above,

11
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.
9. Now so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court
in the case of Rakesh Singh (supra) by the learned counsel for the
respondent is concerned, it is required to be noted that at the time when the
High Court decided the matter no such Clause 8 of the Handbook
Procedure was in force. Handbook Procedure has been adopted by
the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 15.3.2019. Therefore, the said
decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the High
Court has committed an error in permitting respondent delinquent
officer to be represented in the departmental enquiry through
ex-employee of the Bank. The view taken by the learned Single Judge
confirmed by the Division Bench is unsustainable. Accordingly, present
appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench permitting the
respondent delinquent officer to be represented in the departmental
proceedings through ex-employee of the Bank is hereby quashed
and set aside. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
© All Rights Reserved @LiveLaw Media Pvt. Ltd.
*Disclaimer: Always check with the original copy of judgment from the Court
website. Access it here

12