THE RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK (RMGB) & ANR. versus RAMESH CHANDRA MEENA & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 182 · Decided: 04-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 182
182
THE RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK (RMGB) &
ANR.
v.
RAMESH CHANDRA MEENA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7451 of 2021)
JANUARY 04, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
183
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 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. 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 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
THE RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA G

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