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
[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
[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.
[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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
