Dismissed

The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.M.G.B.) v. Ramesh Chandra Meena

Rajasthan HC7 Jul 2021SAW/311/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the bank against a single judge order allowing a delinquent official to be represented by a retired employee during disciplinary proceedings. The Court held that the relevant circulars and handbooks do not prohibit such representation and no prejudice was caused to the Bank.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as it was bereft of merit; the lower court order allowing representation by a retired employee was upheld.

The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 311/2021

¶3

The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB), Through Its Chairman, Head Office Tulsi Tower, 9^th B-Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

The Chairman Cum Disciplinary Authority, Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB), Head Office At Tulsi Tower 9^th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur

¶5

----Appellants Versus

¶6

Ramesh Chandra Meena S/o Sh. Ram Pal Meena, Aged About 51 Years, R/o House No. 1130 Shankar Colony, 4-C Scheme New Lohamandi Road (VKI, Road), Jaipur. Presently Working As Officer Scale - II Regional Business Office (RBO), Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Barmer.

¶7

Sh. K. C. Gupta, Enquiry Authority Working As Officer Scale - IV, RMGB, Staff Training Center, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Jagdish Chandra Vyas
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. S.P. Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Judgment

¶12

07/07/2021

¶13

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) has been allowed by giving a direction to the appellant Bank to allow the respondent writ petitioner to be represented by a retired employee.

¶14

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[SAW-311/2021]

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the services of the retired employee of the Bank is prohibited by the Circular dated 31.01.2014 and the Regulation 8.2 of ChapterVIII of the Handbook on Vigilance Administration & Disciplinary Action of the Memorandum for the Board of the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank. He submits that since the Regulation does not permit the services of a retired employee to be engaged by the delinquent officer, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶18

We have considered the submission made at the Bar and gone through the impugned judgment as well as the Circular dated 31.01.2014 and the guidelines of the Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank governing the holding of the disciplinary enquiries.

¶19

The fundamental question involved in the present case is that the services of an ex-employee can be utilized by the delinquent official for defending his case in the disciplinary proceedings or not.

¶20

Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings are held by the officials of the Bank and the Bank is within their right to utilize the prosecuting agency from the bank or otherwise. The principles of natural justice will be met if the delinquent official is permitted to utilize the services of an ex-employee for defending his case, more particularly when the regulation governing or holding the field does not debar the utilization of services of an ex-employee by the delinquent official. Not only this, even the Regulations permit the services of a lawyer to be engaged, but the same is subject to the permission and approval to be granted by the disciplinary authority.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[SAW-311/2021]

¶23

We are of the considered view that since the Circular of 2014 and Regulation 8.2 do not prohibit the utilization of the services of an ex-employee of the Bank, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not liable to be disturbed. Even otherwise, utilization of services of the retired employee by the respondent writ petitioner do not, in any manner, cause prejudice to the Bank.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Bench at Indore in the case of Mangilal Piplya Vs. Chairman, Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank and Ors., W.P. No. 12182/2018, vide order dated 09.07.2018 , wherein the services of the retired employee has also been allowed to be permitted by the delinquent officer in the disciplinary proceedings.

¶25

In these circumstances, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is absolutely correct and does not call for any interference.

¶26

The appeal is bereft of merit and, therefore, the same stands dismissed.

¶27

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

¶28

58-jayesh/-

The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.M.G.B.) v. Ramesh Chandra Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.M.G.B.) v. Ramesh Chandra Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Dhapubai Bstc College

State of Rajasthan Vs Maa Karni Bstc

State of Rajasthan Vs Mahaveer Jain Vidhyalaya Sansthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Himanshu Khandelwal

State of Rajasthan Vs Ravindra Singh Kuntal

State of Rajasthan Vs Sohan Lal