INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK versus INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 554 · Decided: 04-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK 
v. 
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 4, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Service Latt! : 
Banks-Regulations regarding conduct, discipline 
and ·appeal-
Disciplinary proceedings-Appointment of defence officer_;_Pravision enabling 
an officer/employee to take the assisiance of any other officer-employee to 
defend him in any disciplinary proceedings-Regulation amended by Circular-
Employee not to take assistance of any other employee who has two pending 
disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance-Held, 
constitutionally valid-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14. 
Domestic enquiry-Eniployee-Right of representation~Denial of-
Would not vitiate enquiry unless regulation recognises such a right-
Administrative law~Principles of Natural Justice. 
Banks have their own regulations in respect of the conduct, discipiine 
and appeal pertaining to their officers and staff. The regulation enabling 
an officer-employee to take the assistance of any other officer-employee to 
defend him in any disciplinary proceedings was amended by a Circular on 
the suggestion emanating from the Government of India in consultation 
with the Reserve Bank of India. It stated that the officer employee shall not 
take the assistance of any other employee who has two pending disciplinary 
cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. Respondents challenge«I;· 
the amendm_ent in a writ petition and the High Court held the amendment 
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence the present appeals·. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : t. The Regulation amended by a Circular which provided 
that an officer/employee shall not take the assistance of any other employee 
who has two pending disciplinary cases ou hand i~ whi.ch lie has to give 
H 
assistance, is constitutionally valid. (556-F; G] 
554 
-i 
(, 
\, : 
• 
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANKv. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK OFFICER ASSN. 
555 
2. The serious fallacy underlying the reasoning adopted by the High 
A 
Court seems to be the assumptiOn that an omission to correspondingly fix a 
ceiling in respect of the engagement of the presenting officers confer any 
right as such in the management to flout the said norm or standard when it 
comes to them and have its own way in nominating the presenting officers 
who even held more than two pending disciplinary cases in their hands. In 
B 
the process of such assumption the High Court seems to have overlooked 
the realities of the fact situation specifically noticed by the Government of 
India of one defence .officer holding brief in 50 pending matters; which 
necessarily called. for such specific ceiling vis-a-vis the. defence officer for 
the reason that the seleetion and . choice of which is inevitably with the 
officer-employee concerned and that in the absence ot such a stipulation, 
the management would suffer a serious handicap in observing such a rule 
or principle to so regulate to the surprise of the officer-employees both 
facing enquiries and those to be drafted for defence. [558-F; G; 559-A-C] 
3. A stipulation of the nature under consideration, apart fro in paving 
c 
D 
way for expeditious culmination of the disciplinary proceedings by avoiding 
unnecessary delays on the part of a defence officer holding too many 
engagements on his hand finding difficult to coordinate his appearance in 
various proceedings, would equally go· a long way to ensure that no 
monopoly is created in a chosen.law for such. purposes and that the services 
E 
of the proposed defence officers are equally available in proper measure to 
the institutions which employ them in greater public interest. [559-E; F] 
4.1. The Law in this country does not concede an absolute right of 
representation fo an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to 
be heard and that there is no right of representation by somebody else 
unless the rules or regulation and standing orders, if any, regulating the 
conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognise such a right and 
provide for such representation. [558-C; D] 
4.2. ·Irrespective of the desirability or otherwise of giving the 
employees facing charges of misconduct in· a disciplinary proceeding to 
ensure that his defence does not get debilitated due to inexperience or 
personal embarrassments it cannot be claimed as a matter of right and 
that.tooas constituting an element of principle of natural justice t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.