Supreme Court Rules on Representation in Departmental Inquiries: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena
The Supreme Court of India in Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena addressed a significant issue regarding the representation of employees in departmental inquiries. The ruling, delivered on January 4, 2022, provides clarity on whether an employee facing disciplinary proceedings has an absolute right to appoint a defense representative of their choice, including retired employees of the same bank.
Background of the Case
Ramesh Chandra Meena, a former Cashier-cum-Clerk at RMGB, faced departmental proceedings for alleged irregularities committed while granting loans under a government scheme. The bank accused him of misconduct, stating that he had transferred loan amounts without proper mandates from borrowers.
Upon receiving a chargesheet, Meena denied all allegations and sought to defend himself in the inquiry. However, his request to be represented by a legal practitioner was declined due to restrictions under Regulation 44 of the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2010. Subsequently, he sought permission to be represented by a retired bank officer, which was also denied.
Legal Issues Raised
- Does an employee facing a departmental inquiry have an absolute right to appoint a defense representative (DR) of their choice?
- Is the restriction imposed by RMGB, which allows only serving employees as DRs, legally valid?
- Did the Rajasthan High Court err in directing the bank to permit Meena to be represented by a retired bank officer?
Petitioner’s (RMGB) Arguments
The bank contested the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling on the following grounds:
- Regulation 44 of RMGB explicitly restricts legal practitioners from acting as DRs without prior approval.
- The bank’s Handbook of Vigilance Administration and Disciplinary Action clearly states that only serving employees may act as DRs.
- Allowing retired employees to act as DRs could lead to potential misuse, as former employees, especially those previously subject to inquiries, might attempt to disrupt proceedings.
- Confidentiality concerns arise when ex-employees, particularly those from vigilance or audit departments, represent current employees in inquiries.
- Allowing representation by retired employees could lead to procedural delays and affect the discipline of proceedings.
Respondent’s (Ramesh Chandra Meena) Arguments
Meena defended his request, stating:
- Regulation 44 does not explicitly prohibit engaging a retired bank officer as a DR.
- The High Court of Allahabad, in Rakesh Singh vs. Chairman and Disciplinary Authority, allowed a similar request, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
- Procedural fairness demands that an accused employee should have the right to choose a DR familiar with banking procedures.
- The Handbook relied upon by RMGB is merely a guideline and does not have statutory authority.
Supreme Court’s Observations
1. No Absolute Right to Choose a Defense Representative
- The Court reiterated that an employee does not have an inherent right to be represented by a person of their choice in a departmental inquiry.
- Citing National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. K.V. Rama Reddy and Crescent Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi, the Court held that such representation must conform to service regulations.
2. Validity of RMGB’s Restriction on Retired Employees as DRs
- Clause 8 of RMGB’s Handbook mandates that a DR should be a serving employee. The Court found this restriction reasonable.
- Ensuring that only serving employees act as DRs maintains procedural discipline and confidentiality in disciplinary proceedings.
3. High Court’s Overreach
- The Supreme Court found that the Rajasthan High Court erred by reading Regulation 44 in isolation and ignoring the Handbook’s provisions.
- The Court ruled that Handbook regulations supplement the Service Rules and must be followed in departmental inquiries.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed RMGB’s appeal and set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order. The judgment declared:
“The impugned judgment and order of the High Court permitting the respondent to be represented by a retired bank officer in departmental proceedings is quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed.”
Implications of the Judgment
- Reinforcing Disciplinary Policies: Banks and government institutions can enforce internal regulations restricting representation in disciplinary proceedings.
- Limiting Judicial Intervention: The ruling limits courts from overriding internal regulations of organizations, ensuring procedural integrity.
- Protecting Confidentiality: The decision prevents potential misuse of sensitive information by retired employees acting as DRs.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in RMGB vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena upholds the bank’s authority to regulate representation in disciplinary proceedings. By reinforcing that an employee’s right to representation is subject to internal service rules, the judgment ensures that procedural discipline and confidentiality are maintained. This precedent will guide future disputes concerning representation in inquiries across banking and government sectors.
Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-upholds-dismissal-of-msrtc-driver-in-fatal-accident-case/
Petitioner Name: Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank.
Respondent Name: Ramesh Chandra Meena.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 04-01-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: rajasthan-marudhara-vs-ramesh-chandra-meena-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-04-01-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Workplace Harassment
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjiv Khanna
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
