Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Rajasthan High Court
Manish Sharma S/O Shri Ramkaran Sharma vs Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:21590] (1 of 4) [CW-4781/2024]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4781/2024
Manish Sharma S/o Shri Ramkaran Sharma, Resident Of A -154,
Shiv Shakti Colony, Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Through Its
Chairman, Head Office, Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road,
Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. Regional Manager, Regional Business Office, Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank, 274, Jambeshwar Nagar,
Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Shri Upendra Shekhawat Inquiring Authority Smgs-V,
Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Regional Business
Office, 274, Jambeshwar Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4911/2024 Manish Sharma S/o Shri Ramkaran Sharma, Resident Of A-154, Shiv Shakti Colony, Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Through Its Chairman, Head Office, Tulsi Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. Regional Manager, Regional Business Office Jaipur-2, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Opposite Police Headquarter Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Shri Abhimanyu Charan, Inquiring Authority Smgs-V, Regional Business Office Jaipur-2, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Opposite Police Headquarter Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:30:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21590] (2 of 4) [CW-4781/2024] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mitesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 07/05/2024
1. The instant petition is filed assailing the order impugned dated 29.06.2024 (Annexure-6).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not being permitted to participate in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him qua the charges of embezzlement, through a legal representative/advocate. It was further submitted that the said action of the respondents is illegal and is causing prejudice to the petitioner's fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. It was averred that time and again, the petitioner has demanded the relevant documents, so that he may defend himself in the said proceedings. But the same were supplied to him at a belated stage. Aggrieved of the same and due to a lack of adequate legal knowledge, the petitioner had filed a representation to allow him to engage a Legal Practitioner/Advocate, to contest the said disciplinary proceedings.
4. In this regard, reliance is placed on Regulation 44 i.e. Restriction on Engagement of Legal Practitioner, wherein it is categorically stated that a legal practitioner can be engaged on prior permission of the competent authority.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that vide order dated 29.02.2024, it was categorically made clear (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:30:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:21590] (3 of 4) [CW-4781/2024] that considering the provisions of chapter VIII of Handbook on Vigilance Administration and Disciplinary Action, the petitioner cannot be allowed to engage any legal practitioner as his defense representative.
6. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the dictum enunciated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7451/2021 titled as The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank & Anr. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena and Anr. While placing reliance upon the same, it was submitted that the Apex Court has categorically held that a legal practitioner cannot be permitted in the enquiry proceedings.
7. Heard and considered.
8. Considering the foregoing facts, arguments averred by both the sides and the judgment cited at the Bar, this Court is of the following opinion:
8.1 That as per Regulation 44, engagement of legal practitioner is not a matter of absolute right. Relying upon the dictum of The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (Supra), and the provisions of Regulation 44, it is inferred that in exceptional and rarest of the rare cases, permission of engaging legal practitioner is permitted, albeit, there is no absolute bar and for appropriate reasons the said can be permitted. 8.2 That the impugned order dated 29.02.2024, is non-
speaking as the respondents have only relied upon the provisions of Chapter VIII (Ordering an Inquiry) of Handbook on Vigilance Administration and Disciplinary Action and no other reasonable justification is noted therein for the said denial. (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:30:53 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:21590] (4 of 4) [CW-4781/2024]
9. In the interest of justice, this court deems it appropriate to dispose of the instant petition with the following directions:
9.1 That the petitioner will be permitted to file appropriate representation, justifying his need to engage a legal practitioner to participate in the enquiry process.
9.2 Respondent-Bank/competent authority is directed to pass a well reasoned speaking order for appointment/denial of the legal practitioner in accordance with law and after following the principles of natural justice.
10. Qua the adjudication on the legal representation, the presence of a legal practitioner shall be permitted.
11. Needful to be done within a period of fortnight.
12. In the meantime, interim order/protection granted shall continue till final adjudication be made on the said points.
13. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with the above said directions. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /67-68 (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:30:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)