1 - Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri A.P. Sharma Aged About 55 Years R/o v. 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its General Manager, Head Office, Mahadev Ghat
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:4408-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 44 of 2025 1 - Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri A.P. Sharma Aged About 55 Years R/o Plot No. 2, Hanuman Nagar, Durg Chhattisgarh. ... appellant versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Its General Manager, Head Office, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Enquiry Officer Presently Posted As Branch Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Branch Nandghat, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Siddarth Rathore, Advocate Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.01.2025 1. The present writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 10/12/2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2
Decision
5648/2021 whereby the the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-Bank in the year 1991 and was working with utmost sincerity since then. In the year 2013, he was posted as Branch Manager at Durg Branch. During his posting at Durg Branch, certain irregularities have been found in advancing loan to various persons without completing the necessary requirements and also with the collusion and conspiracy with the other persons and embezzled the fund of the respondent Bank. Charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner under the Regulations 17, 18 and 20 of Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank, Officers and Employees Service Regulation, 2013 (in short Regulation, 2013). An FIR has also been lodged against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC and charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg in which he was facing trial. 3. After filing of the charge-sheet in the criminal case, the respondent Bank proceeded for departmental inquiry against the petitioner. During the said departmental inquiry, the petitioner moved an application on 30.12.2020 before the Inquiry Officer and sought permission to be represented in the inquiry proceeding through either a retired employee of the respondent Bank or through a legal practitioner under Regulation 44 of the said Regulation of 2013. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of permission to be represented by retired employee of the Bank was rejected on 16/01/2021 and informed that the inquiry committee is unable to grant such permission and it can be obtained only from competent authority. Thereafter, the petitioner 3 moved another application before the competent authority on 25/01/2021 seeking permission for being represented through a legal practitioner in the departmental proceedings but the same has also not been considered. The subsequent representation dated 21.06.2021 filed before the competent authority/ respondent No. 1 has again been rejected on 30.06.2021 by saying that the petitioner can defend his case through the working employee of the Bank and there is no provision in the Regulation, 2013 to permit him for defending his case through a retired employee. Therefore, the present petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is unaware about the legal proceedings and therefore, he moved his application for permission either to be represented through a retired employee or a legal practitioner but the same has not been considered. The provisions of Bank of the Regulation, 2013 is very stringent as there would be no working employee who would be ready to defend him in departmental proceeding on the apprehension that if he will support the employee, he may also be face any litigation with the Bank. Opportunity of defending the case is a valuable right of the petitioner and therefore, the same may be afforded to him but the authorities have rejected his claim. The learned Single Judge has also not considered the principles of natural justice and has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that Regulation 44 of the Regulation, 2013 has not provided such relief. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be permitted to defend his case through a retired employee or through a legal practitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported 6. 7. 4 the impugned order and has submitted that Regulation 44 of the Regulation, 2013 clearly provides that the officer or employee shall not engage a legal practitioner without prior permission of the competent authority therefore, considering the provisions of Regulation, 2013 as well as the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena AIR Online 2022 SC 5, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is liable to be affirmed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. From perusal of the material annexed with the petition as well as Regulation 44 of the Regulation, 2013, it is quite vivid that appearance of legal practitioner is bar in the departmental proceeding without prior permission of the competent authorities. The application filed by the petitioner filed on 30.12.2020 was rejected on the said date itself and he again moved his application on 01.03.2021 and 30.06.2021. Learned Single Judge after considering the case of Ramesh Chandra Meena (Supra) has held that if the application is rejected, such permission cannot be granted to the delinquent employee and he may challenge the ultimate out come of the departmental proceeding, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be faulty or perverse under the facts of the case as well as the Regulation, 2013 and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Meena (Supra) case. We therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere in the appeal as the same is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 8. No cost(s). 5 Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.29 16:13:28 +0530