INTRODUCTION
Today, I will talk about the case of Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) and Another v. Ramesh Chandra Meena and Another,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 9, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the right of
an employee to be represented through counsel or agent in the Departmental
Proceedings.
It is common knowledge that when a person works in
a government establishment or a bank or other instrumentalities of the State,
such person’s service is governed by the relevant Service Rules or Regulations.
In case of any misconduct or irregularity, the Department or the Employer can
initiate Departmental Proceedings against such person/employee. The relevant
Services Rules or Regulations prescribe for the procedure and the modalities
that ought to be followed in the Departmental Proceedings.
Such Departmental Proceedings are presided over by
a Senior Officer designated by the Employer and the delinquent employee usually
represents himself on his own. Most of the Service Rules or Regulations usually
restrict legal practitioners to represent the delinquent employee without prior
permission. In some cases, the delinquent employee may choose a colleague of
his to represent him in the Departmental Proceedings. The purpose of not
allowing counsels or agents, without prior permission, to represent delinquent
employee is to prevent any outside influence or interference in the
Departmental Proceedings.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
In the present case, the Court discussed whether a
delinquent employee has a right to be represented through a counsel or an agent
in the Departmental Proceedings?
According to the Court, “in holding domestic
enquiries, reasonable opportunity should be given to the delinquent employees
to meet the charge framed against them.” Even liberty to represent
their case by person of their choice should also be given provided that there
is nothing to the contrary contained in the Service Rules or Regulations.
However, any refusal to allow representation for an agent or a counsel would
not vitiate the proceedings.
The object or purpose of having provisions that
restrict representation through counsels or agents is to ensure that the
domestic enquiry does not get prolonged endlessly and no confidential
information gets divulged to any outside person during the course of the
Departmental Proceedings.
Further, ordinarily in such Departmental
Enquiries, the person accused conducts his own case and to allow or disallow an
agent or a counsel to represent such accused person is the discretion of the
employer. There is per se no right to representation in the departmental
proceedings through a representative unless the relevant Service Rules or
Regulations recognize such a right.
SUMAMRY AND CONCLUSION
Thus, in conclusion, it could be said that: -
a. “In the departmental proceedings right to
be represented through counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or
regulated by statute, rules, regulations or Standing Orders.”
b. “A delinquent has no right to be
represented through counsel or agent unless the law specifically confers such a
right.”
c. “The requirement of the rule of natural
justice insofar as the delinquent's right of hearing is concerned, cannot and
does not extend to a right to be represented through counsel or agent.”
Accordingly,
I hope that the conundrum relating to the right of an employee to be
represented through counsel or agent in the Departmental Proceedings is clear
by now.
No comments:
Post a Comment