Delinquent officer has no absolute right to be represented through agent of his choice in departmental proceedings: SC

Read Judgment: The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (rmgb) & Anr. vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena & Anr. 

Pankaj Bajpai

New  Delhi, January 5, 2022: The Supreme Court has 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. 

A Division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that as a matter of right in each and every case, irrespective of whether charges are of 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.

In this case, the Respondent-Ramesh Chandra Meena working as Cashier – cum Clerk, was alleged to have committed certain irregularities amounting to misconduct. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued by the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Appellant) whereby it was stated that Respondent had committed irregularities while granting loans to farmers / villagers under the loan scheme and he did not take adequate precautions.

It was also stated that without written mandates of borrowers, he transferred the loan amount in favour of another person and had thus committed misconduct. Hence, Departmental Inquiry was initiated against him and charge sheet was served in terms of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010. An opportunity was afforded to the Respondent to take assistance of a defence representative (DR), however, the Respondent 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, Respondent’s request permitting him to defend himself through a legal practitioner came to be declined.  Challenging the same, the Respondent approached the High Court, and the Single Judge directed the Appellant-Bank to permit the Respondent to be represented through a retired officer of the Bank in the disciplinary proceedings. Not satisfied, the Bank approached the Division Bench, but in vain, as the Single Judge’s decision was not interfered with. 

After considering the arguments, the Apex Court observed that the respondent  delinquent employee 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, added the Court. 

Therefore, the Top Court noted that even availing the services of legal practitioner is permissible with the leave of the competent authority. 

However, Regulation does not specifically provide that an employee can avail the services of any outsider and / or ex-employee of the Bank as DR, and 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, added the Top Court. 

“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/ charge-sheet / 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”, observed the Bench.

The Apex Court therefore held that the High Court committed an error in permitting the delinquent officer to be represented in the departmental enquiry through an ex-employee of the Bank.