# Corporation v. M/s Suvarna Board Mills

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 100
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-12-03
- **Case number:** Court vide Writ Petition No. 7538 of 2001
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/corporation-v-m-s-suvarna-board-mills-40044
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri Yashwant Verma

Aligarh
Gramin
Bank
(Officer
and
Employees) Regulation 2000 Reg. 38
Part I- Domestic Enquiry- delinquent
employee
asked
to
engaged
the
defensive representative of an officer not
belonging to the Bank in question- held
the claim can not be rejected.

Held- Para 10

As a result of the foregoing discussions, I
converge to the view that the petitioner
has a right to engage Sri R.P. Singh or
any officer from Central Bank of India
Aligarh or any other Branch to defend
and represent him in the enquiry which
is already afoot. The petition is allowed
in part in terms of the above with no
order as to costs.
Case Law discussed
AIR 1983 SC-454
AIR 1983 SC-109
AIR 1991 SC 1221
2001 (a) SCC-540
1999 (i) SCC-626

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
JT 280 Maharashtra State Financial
Corporation vs. M/s Suvarna Board Mills
it was held by the Supreme Court that
where a notice was issued calling upon
the petitioner to pay the dues failing
which possession of his property will be
taken, no other show cause notice is
required before taking possession. It has
been held in several decisions of this
Court vide Writ Petition No. 7538 of 2001
Prakash Chandra Bansal vs. General
Manage decided on 13.12.2001, writ
petition no. 19658 of 2001 K.K. Singh
Vs. Gomti Gramin Bank decided on
19.12.2001, Ram Prakash vs. Allahabad
Bank 2000(3) UPLBEC 193 etc. that a
bank operates on public confidence and
hence the highest degree of discipline and
integrity is required to be maintained by
its employees in order to maintain public
confidence in the Bank. Hence greater
integrity and discipline is required from
bank employees as compared to other
employees, otherwise the public will lose
confidence in the Bank and there may be
a run on the Bank to withdraw money. In
the present case we are satisfied that there
was sufficient compliance of natural
justice.

16. In view of the above we find no
merit in this petition and it is dismissed
accordingly. Interim order if any is
vacated.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 3.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48308 of 2002

Sri Latoori Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Chairman, Aligarh Gramin Bank, Aligarh

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri I.M. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Yashwant Verma

Aligarh
Gramin
Bank
(Officer
and
Employees) Regulation 2000 Reg. 38
Part I- Domestic Enquiry- delinquent
employee
asked
to
engaged
the
defensive representative of an officer not
belonging to the Bank in question- held
the claim can not be rejected.

Held- Para 10

As a result of the foregoing discussions, I
converge to the view that the petitioner
has a right to engage Sri R.P. Singh or
any officer from Central Bank of India
Aligarh or any other Branch to defend
and represent him in the enquiry which
is already afoot. The petition is allowed
in part in terms of the above with no
order as to costs.
Case Law discussed
AIR 1983 SC-454
AIR 1983 SC-109
AIR 1991 SC 1221
2001 (a) SCC-540
1999 (i) SCC-626

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. Denial of assistance of law
assistant to represent and defend the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Sri Latoori Singh Vs. Chairman, Aligarh Gramin Bank, Aligarh
101
petitioner in the departmental enquiry has
been the causative factor for knocking the
door of this Court by means of the present
petition. The petition on hand has been
instituted for the relief of certiorari
quashing the whole enquiry proceedings
including charge sheet contained in
Annexure 5, 7 and 10 to the writ petition
and the second relief, ostensibly as an
alternative, is for a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondent to allow the
petitioner to appoint an independent
defence representative (Sri R.P. Singh a
Special Officer of Central Bank of India).
Besides the above reliefs, the petitioner
has also prayed for other ancillary reliefs.

2. The petitioner claims to be a non
gazetted officer. The precise indictment
against the petitioner as contained in the
charge sheet is that he remained posted as
Manager at Ladpur Branch and also at
Khair Branch of the Bank and while
posted as Manager at the aforesaid
branches,
he
leagued
with
certain
borrowers and granted fictitious loan in
breach of the norms/guidelines prescribed
by the Bank and thereby worked against
the interest of the Bank. So far as first
relief is concerned , at the very threshold,
it is worth observing that since enquiry
proceedings are afoot and petitioner,
indisputably, has an alternative remedy to
represent his case before the enquiry
officer or the Disciplinary authority, as
the case may be, who alone can entertain
the prayer for appropriate reliefs and the
prayer for; quashing the disciplinary
proceeding and the charge sheet being
supererogatory at this stage, cannot be
entertained and the petition to this extent
is liable to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
abandoned his contention in relation to
first prayer and switched over to second
prayer stating that in the departmental
enquiry, he made an application attended
with the prayer to permit the assistance of
a law assistant to represent him before the
enquiry
officer
however
accorded
permission to engage some colleague
employee of the self same bank to
represent and defend the petitioner in the
enquiry.
According
to
the
learned
counsel, the petitioner cannot be defended
properly with the assistance of a colleague
employee of the self same bank inasmuch
as the enquiry has commenced at
Headquarter and in the presence of senior
officers including Chairman of the Bank,
it is unlikely that the petitioner may be
represented and defended properly by an
employee of the Bank. He suggested that
the petitioner might be permitted to
engage some independent person to
defend and represent him in the enquiry
and named one R.P. Singh of Central
Bank of India. To enforce his aforesaid
submissions, the learned counsel called in
aid the decisions reported in AIR 1983 SC
454 1983 SC 109 and AIR 1991 SC 1221.

4. In opposition, Sri Yashwant
Verma, appearing for the Opposite Parties
contended that the right to engage
defending representative does not consist
in reasonable opportunity to defend and
such right is contingent upon the Rules
and
Regulations
governing
the
disciplinary
proceeding.
He
further
contended that Aligarh Gramin Bank
(Officers
and
employees)
Service
Regulations, 2000 do not envisage any
provision to engage any defending
representative from other bank and
therefore, proceeds the submission, the
petitioner's claim to engage Sri R.P. Singh
from Central Bank of India to defend and
represent him in the enquiry has no
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
cutting edge and does not lend itself for
acceptance. In aid of his contentions,
reliance has been placed by the learned
counsel on decisions reported in (2001) 9
SCC 540, and (1999) 1 SCC 626.

5. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and considered their respective
arguments in all their ramifications.
Before examining the contentions of the
learned counsel, it is necessary to have an
acquaintance with the Aligarh Gramin
Bank (officers and employees) Service
Regulations 2000 (hereinafter to be
abbreviated as Regulations). Proviso to
Regulation 38 Part I being germane to the
controversy involved in this petition is
excerpted below.

" Provided that where it is proposed
to impose any of the minor penalties
specified in sub clauses (i) to (iii) or
clause 1 of this Regulation, the officer
concerned shall be informed in writing of
the imputations of lapses against him and
given an opportunity to submit his written
statement of defence within specified
period not exceeding 15 days or such
extended period as may be granted by the
Competent Authority and the defence
statement, if any, submitted by the officer
shall be taken into consideration by the
competent
authority
before
passing
orders.

Provided further that no order
imposing any of the major penalties
specified above shall be made except by
an order in writing signed by the
Competent Authority and no such order
shall be passed without the charge or
charges being to formulated in writing
and given to the officer and enquiry held
so
that
he
shall
have
reasonable
opportunity to answer the charge or
charges and defend himself.

6. Proviso to Regulation 38 as
excerpted above, crystallizes that no order
imposing any of the major penalties
specified above shall be made except by
an order in writing signed by a competent
authority and no such order shall be
passed without signed by a competent
authority and no such order shall be
passed without charge or charges being
formulated in writing and given an
opportunity to answer the charge or
charges and defend himself. Regulation
43 also makes it clear that for the purpose
of enquiry, the officer or employee shall
not engage ka legal practitioner without
prior
permission
of
the
competent
authority. Upon a cumulative reading of
both the regulations, the intendment
shielding the intention of the framers of
the regulations would appear to be that in
appropriate cases engagement of legal
practitioners can also be made but it has
been hedged in with the condition of prior
approval of the competent authority. In
the present case, the prayer to engage
legal practitioner has been nodded in
disapproval by the competent authority.
However,
the
enquiry
officer
has
accorded permission to the petitioner to
take assistance of some one from the self
same bank to defend and represent him in
the enquiry. Learned counsel for the
petitioner did not mince words and
articulated
apprehension
that
the
petitioner could not be defended properly
if he employs the services of someone
from the self same bank and it would
amount
to
negation
of
reasonable
opportunity of hearing to defend himself
if engagement of Sri R.P. Singh from
Central Bank of India to represent and
defend him is denied to him. He further
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Sri Latoori Singh Vs. Chairman, Aligarh Gramin Bank, Aligarh
103
submitted that denial of engagement of an
officer from other bank is not prohibited
under the relevant rules. The argument
appears to have substance particularly
with due regard to the fact ;that in case
engagement of a legal practitioner is not
prohibited who can well be compared in
parity with a person proposed to be
engaged by the petitioner in the instant
petition, engagement of an officer from
other bank can be implied as being
implicit in the regulations.

7. In the light of the above
arguments, I now propose to go into the
substantiality and ratio decide of the
decisions cited in connection with the
propositions advanced across the bar,
Board of Trustees Port of Bombay v.
Dilipkumar1, Bhagat Ram v. State of
H.P.2 and J.K. Agarwal v. Haryana
Seeds Development Corporation Ltd.3
are the sheer anchor of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. From a close scrutiny of the
decisions afore stated, it is explicitly clear
that an employee has no right to
representation
in
the
departmental
proceedings by any other person or a
lawyer unless service rules specifically
envisages so. Similar views finds its echo
in a decision of the Apex Court in Indian
Overseas Bank v. Indian Overseas
Bank
Officers'
Association
and
another4. In this case, the question that
begged consideration of the Apex Court
was whether in a domestic enquiry
employee has a right of representation by
somebody else ? The apex Court held it
not to be an absolute right in the absence

1 AIR 1983 SC 109
2 AIR 1983 SC 454
3 AIR 1991 SC 1221
4 SCC540
of provisions in the relevant rules and
regulations or standing orders as stated
supra.

8. As discussed above, from a
perusal of regulation 43 of the
Regulations, intendment is very clear that
in appropriate case, employee has a right
to be defended through a lawyer and the
only restriction operating in the way is
prior approval of the competent authority.
If the regulation envisages that an officer
can be defended through a lawyer also,
the view is irresistible that in case the
petitioner makes a prayer to engage some
officer from a bank other than the
respondent bank, which would be an
independent person unrestrained by any
disciplinary control of the employer, the
petitioner will be properly defended and
the intention of the framers of the
regulations in this regard is too obvious
and patent to be ignored that they
intended a right to be defended through an
independent representative either from the
same bank or from the other bank by the
expression that 'he shall have reasonable
opportunity to answer the charge or
charges and defend himself.' In holding
that the petition has a right to defend
himself through a person belonging to the
Bank other than the self same bank, I am
swayed
and
influenced
by
the
consideration as made by the Apex Court
in para 5 in the case of Bhagat Ram v.
State of H.P. (supra) and feel called to
observe that the person chosen by the
petitioner to defend and represent him
belonging to other bank would be fully
and equally equipped with the knowledge
of banking regulations and would be an
effective person to defend the petitioner in
the disciplinary proceedings. The vignette
of observations made by the Apex Court
in Board of Trustees of the Port of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Bombay
v.
Diliplkumar
Raghavendranath
Nadkarni
(supra)
may be excerpted below for edification on
the point involved in this case:

"In our view we have reached a stage
in our onward march to fair play in action
that where in an enquiry before a
domestic tribunal the delinquent officer is
pitted against a legally trained mind if he
seeks permission to appear through a legal
practitioner the refusal to grant this
request to defend himself and the
essential principles of natural justice
would be violated."

9. In the above conspectus, I veer
round to the view Aligarh Gramin Bank
(officers
and
employees)
service
regulations
2000
dos
not
prescribe
engagement of any person from a Bank
other than the respondent bank.

10. As a result of the foregoing
discussion, I converge to the view that the
petitioner has a right to engage Sri R.P.
Singh or any officer from Central Bank of
India Aligarh or any other branch to
defend and represent him in the enquiry
which is already afoot. The petition is
allowed in part in terms of the above with
no order as to costs.
--------