Summary
The Court set aside the High Court’s direction allowing a bank employee to use a retired bank officer as his defence representative in a departmental inquiry. Regulation 44’s silence on former employees did not create that entitlement. The Board-approved vigilance handbook validly supplemented the regulation by requiring a serving bank employee as representative. Natural justice required a fair opportunity to defend the charges, rather than an unrestricted choice of agent. Requests for legal counsel in severe and complex cases remained open to consideration under Regulation 44.
Issues
- Whether the employee had a right to engage a retired bank employee as defence representative.
- Whether the Board-approved handbook could supplement Regulation 44’s provisions on representation.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 44, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010Permission for a legal practitioner did not imply a right to choose a retired employee; silence on former employees could be supplemented by the handbook. (¶ 7-8)
- Chapter VIII, Clause 8.2, Handbook of Vigilance Administration and Disciplinary ActionThe Board-approved requirement that a defence representative be a serving bank official or employee was binding and consistent with Regulation 44. (¶ 7-9)
Held
- There is no absolute right to representation by an agent of one’s choice in a domestic inquiry. Representation can be regulated by the applicable service rules and standing orders, provided the delinquent employee receives a fair opportunity to present the defence. (¶¶ 6.1-6.6, 8)
- Regulation 44 requires prior permission for engaging a legal practitioner but neither permits nor prohibits representation by former employees. The High Court erred in treating that silence and the possibility of permission for counsel as establishing a right to a retired representative. (¶ 7)
- The Board-approved handbook supplemented the regulations without conflicting with them. Read harmoniously, Clause 8.2’s requirement of a serving bank employee applied and justified refusal of an ex-employee as representative. (¶ 7-8)
- In a severe and complex case, a request for counsel may be considered under Regulation 44, and an unjustified refusal may be raised when challenging the inquiry’s ultimate outcome. That possibility does not confer unrestricted representation rights in every case. (¶ 8)
- Rakesh Singh was distinguishable because the relevant handbook clause had not been in force when that case was decided. The Bank’s handbook was adopted by its Board in 2019. (¶ 9)
Result
Bank’s appeal allowed; High Court orders permitting representation by an ex-employee set aside; no order as to costs.