The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) & Anr. vs Ramesh Chandra Meena & Anr.
Background
A bank employee facing a departmental inquiry for alleged loan-related irregularities asked to be represented by a legal practitioner, and when that was refused, asked instead to be represented by a retired bank employee as his "defence representative." The Bank refused this too, relying on a Board-approved "Handbook of Vigilance Administration" clause requiring the defence representative to be a serving official of the Bank. The employee went to the Rajasthan High Court, which ruled in his favour at both the single-judge and division-bench level, holding that the Bank's service regulations did not expressly bar an ex-employee from acting as defence representative.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reviewed a long line of its own precedents holding that an employee has no absolute right to representation of his choice in a departmental inquiry: such representation can be restricted or regulated by an employer's rules and regulations. It found that while the Bank's Service Regulation, 2010 was silent on ex-employees, the separately-approved Handbook Procedure (binding on all Bank employees) expressly required the defence representative to be a serving official, and this Handbook supplemented rather than conflicted with the Regulation. The High Court had failed to consider this Handbook clause. The Bank had legitimate reasons for the restriction, such as preventing ex-employees who were themselves under past disciplinary scrutiny, or who had confidential vigilance/audit knowledge, from acting as representatives.
Lesson Learnt
An employee facing a disciplinary inquiry does not have an automatic right to be represented by a person of their choosing (including a retired colleague); representation rights are governed strictly by the applicable service rules and internal policy documents, which courts must read together rather than in isolation.