2022 INSC 0007
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 7451 of 2021
The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank        …Appellant (s)
(RMGB) & Anr.
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Meena & Anr.           …Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1.0. 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
Page   1  of   27

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.
2.0. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are
as under:
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
Page   2  of   27

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
Page   3  of   27

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 writ  petitioner to  permit him to engage a legal
practitioner   as   his   DR   in   the   inquiry   proceedings,
Page   4  of   27

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
Page   5  of   27

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.
Page   6  of   27

3.0. 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 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
Page   7  of   27

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
Page   8  of   27

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. Ananthakumari & 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   Limited   v.
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Ors.   reported
in (1999) 1 SCC 626.
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   Cipla   Limited   &   Ors   v.
Ripu Daman Bahnot   & Anr.  reported in (1999) 4 SCC
Page   9  of   27

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
Page   10  of   27

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. Ex­employees   who   themselves   may   have   been
subject of a disciplinary enquiry/ chargesheeted /
dismissed from service are also enabled to act as
Defence Representatives.
II. Ex­employees 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
Page   11  of   27

as   decorum   when   a   disgruntled   ex­employee   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   ex­employee   as   his
DR.
Making   the   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to
allow the present appeal.
4.0. 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
Page   12  of   27

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.
4.3. It   is   submitted   that   judgments   cited   by   the   learned
counsel for the appellant shall not be applicable to the
Page   13  of   27

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.
Page   14  of   27

Making   the   above   submissions   and   relying   upon
the above decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present
appeal.  
5.0. 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
ex­employee   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,
Page   15  of   27

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 ?
6.0. 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   ex­facie
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   of­course   an   employer   in   his   discretion   can
and   may   allow   his   employee   to   avail   himself   of   such
Page   16  of   27

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
Page   17  of   27

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   unless   the   Service   Rules   specifically   provided
for   the   same.   A   Three­Judge   Bench   of   this   Court
in Crescent   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   co­workman   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. ”
Page   18  of   27

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,   staff­member   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,
Page   19  of   27

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.
6.5. A   similar   view   has   been   expressed   by   this   Court   in
the   case   of   Bharat   Petroleum   Corporation   Limited
(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
Page   20  of   27

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.
7.0. 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   ex­employee  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,
Page   21  of   27

2010   neither   restricts   nor   permits   availing   the
services   of   any   outsider   and   /   or   ex­employee   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
Page   22  of   27

on   the   ground   that   the   same   cannot   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 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 ex­employee 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
Page   23  of   27

the agent of his choice and the same can be restricted
by the employer.
8.0. 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   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   ex­employee   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   ex­employee   is   enabled   to   act   as   defence
representative;   they   may   adopt   delay   tactics   in
departmental enquiry and may not permit completion
Page   24  of   27

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   ex­employee   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,  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,
Page   25  of   27

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.
9.0. 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   ex­employee   of   the
Bank.   The   view   taken   by   the   learned   Single   Judge
confirmed   by   the   Division   Bench   is   unsustainable.
Page   26  of   27

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
ex­employee   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. 
………………………………… J.
          (M. R. SHAH)
………………………………… J.
  (SANJIV KHANNA)
New Delhi, 
January, 04 2022
Page   27  of   27