IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA Girish Kumar Mehtani SBI & Another CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate with Ms. Chahat, Advocate for respondents no. 1 & 2. VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Facts 1. The writ of certiorari 13.02.2024, passed for legal assistance departmental proceedings 2. The that the petitioner the erstwhile State 22.04.1993, and Bhiwani. Upon IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:17.07.2025 CWP-9290 Pronounced on: Girish Kumar Mehtani VERSUS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate with Ms. Chahat, Advocate for respondents no. 1 & 2. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. The petitioner has approached this certiorari for quashing the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Bank, whereby assistance and representation by proceedings was rejected. The facts relevant for adjudication petitioner was initially appointed to the post State Bank of Patiala, pursuant to and he thereafter joined duties at the merger of State Bank of Patiala IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on:17.07.2025 9290-2024 (O&M) Pronounced on: 12.08.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Chahat, Advocate for respondents no. 1 & 2. this court seeking issuance of a orders dated 10.11.2023 and whereby the petitioner’s request an Advocate in ongoing adjudication of the present petition are post of Cashier-cum-Clerk in to an appointment letter dated at the Vikas Nagar Branch, Patiala with the State Bank of ...Respondents MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document India, the petitioner and disciplinary 3. The probation, and regularity and diligence. 4. In the Window Operator under suspension irregularities pertaining force for an extended vide order dated 5. However, the Assistant General explanation in respect which the Bank written reply to 6. Without dated 19.12.2017 his written defence none-the-less appointed conduct the regular 7. In view involved accusations potential misconduct CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) petitioner became an employee governed disciplinary framework of the respondent-Bank. The petitioner successfully completed continued in service, discharging diligence. the course of his service, while Operator at the AMM Branch, the petitioner suspension vide order dated 14.09.2016, on pertaining to financial entries. Th extended period of over two years dated 20.02.2019. However, vide a show cause notice General Manager, the petitioner respect of certain financial transactions Bank deemed to be irregular. The petitioner the said show-cause notice on 30.01.2017. Without objectively considering the 19.12.2017 was served upon the petitioner. defence to the said charge sheet on appointed Shri Satish Chander Gupta regular departmental inquiry. view of the gravity and complexity accusations of fraudulent transactions, misconduct of a technical nature, 2 (O&M) governed by the service conditions Bank. completed the prescribed period of discharging his responsibilities with while being posted as a Single petitioner came to be placed on account of certain alleged The suspension remained in years and was ultimately revoked notice dated 25.01.2017, issued by was directed to submit his transactions on different dates, petitioner submitted a detailed 30.01.2017. the same, a formal charge sheet petitioner. The petitioner submitted on 10.01.2018 but the Bank Gupta as the Inquiry Officer to complexity of the allegations, which transactions, financial discrepancies, and the petitioner submitted a MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document representation permission to proceedings. 8. The Manager vide letter avail assistance Kumar Jain or Shri such proposed purported opportunity with the rejection Zonal Manager/DGM, 01.09.2018. 9. Aggrieved of CWP No. 5318 denial of legal petition was allowed a direction was request. 10. The 02.11.2023 requesting defence before respondent-Bank subsequent appeal CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) dated 23.05.2018 before the be represented by a legal practitioner The said request, however, came to letter dated 23.07.2018, who instead from one of two named Bank Shri Rajeshwar. It is the contention officials declined to assist him, pportunity illusory and devoid of practical rejection of his request, the petitioner preferred Manager/DGM, which was also dismissed Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner ap 5318 of 2019, wherein the primary representation in disciplinary allowed by this Hon’ble Court vide issued to the respondent-Bank to The petitioner thus submitted requesting for permission to engage the Inquiry Officer. The same Bank vide order dated 10.11.2023 received appeal against this rejection also met 3 (O&M) the Inquiry Officer, seeking practitioner in the inquiry to be rejected by the Regional instead directed the petitioner to Bank officials, viz. Shri Parmod contention of the petitioner that both him, thereby rendering the practical utility. Dissatisfied preferred an appeal before the dismissed vide order dated approached this Court by way primary grievance espoused was the proceedings. The said writ vide order dated 05.10.2023 and to reconsider the petitioner’s a fresh application dated engage a lawyer to assist him in his same was again declined by the received on 14.12.2023. His met the same fate vide order MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document dated 13.02.2024, Hence the present Arguments of the 11. Counsel Hon’ble Court in order dated 05.10.2023 for legal representation petitioner, in faithful representation dated through a counsel Court’s directions, summarily rejected manner, thus denying adequately. An similar fate, being 04.03.2024), without earlier issued by 12. Counsel offering the petitioner purportedly office petitioner’s specific members were willing provide assistance. CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) 13.02.2024, which was received by the sent writ petition. the Petitioner Counsel submits that following the in CWP No. 5318 of 2019, which 05.10.2023 directing reconsideration representation in the ongoing departmental faithful compliance with the said dated 02.11.2023 seeking permission counsel of his choice. However, despite directions, the respondent-Bank, vide rejected the request again in a mechanical denying the petitioner the opportunity appeal preferred against the said being dismissed vide order dated without due application of mind or by this Hon’ble Court. Counsel contends that the respondent petitioner to be represented only through office-bearers of the employees’ specific plea that neither those individuals willing to represent him in the matter assistance. Consequently, the so-called 4 (O&M) the petitioner on 04.03.2024. the earlier intervention of this which culminated in a reasoned reconsideration of the petitioner’s request departmental proceedings, the said order, submitted a fresh permission to be represented despite the binding nature of this vide order dated 10.11.2023, mechanical and non-speaking opportunity to defend himself said rejection also met with a dated 13.02.2024 (received on or reference to the directions respondent-Bank has persisted in through two named individuals, union, however despite the ndividuals nor any other union matter since they declined to called opportunity offered to the MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document petitioner under 10.04.2002 is circumstances, it representation, which 13. Counsel urges charge sheet dated involving serious It is submitted that expert scrutiny implications concerning necessitate the being without any meaningfully or such circumstances 14. It is charges and the loss of livelihood, dignity, the right significance. Counsel held that in cases opportunity to defend 15. Counsel Agreement dated Authority to permit CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) under the guise of compliance with the illusory and devoid of any it is argued that the petitioner is which frustrates the very object of urges that the allegations levelled dated 19.12.2017 are of a technical serious charges of fraud, forgery, and that the inquiry requires scrutiny scrutiny of transactional records, and concerning forgery and criminal assistance of a trained legal professional. any legal expertise, cannot be expected or effectively. It is argued that denial circumstances violates the principles of natural is further submitted that considering potential consequences, including livelihood, and irreparable harm to the right to be heard through legal counsel Counsel emphasises that the Supreme cases involving serious consequences, defend oneself amounts to denial Counsel also relies upon the provisions dated 10.04.2002, which confers discretion permit legal representation where 5 (O&M) the Bipartite Settlement dated any real efficacy. In such is effectively left without any of the Bipartite Settlement. levelled against the petitioner in the technical and complex nature, and financial misappropriation. scrutiny of voluminous documents, and understanding of legal misconduct, matters which professional. The petitioner, expected to conduct his defence denial of legal representation in natural justice. considering the severity of the including termination from service, the petitioner’s reputation and counsel assumes even greater Supreme Court has consistently consequences, the denial of adequate of a fair hearing. provisions of the Bipartite discretion upon the Disciplinary where justified by the facts and MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document complexity of the exercised reasonably any cogent reason 16. In addition, condition of the treatment for acute has been advised professionals at Delhi. Counsel submits condition, and yet subjecting the petitioner 17. To placed reliance on Court in Antonio India & Others High Court in reported as 2005 Bamania v. Managing Lab. L.R. 539. 18. In view issuance of an appropriate dated 10.11.2023 respondent-Bank choice in the ongoing CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) the matter. It is submitted that reasonably and not arbitrarily. The responden reason for the rejection of the petitioner’s addition, learned counsel refers the petitioner and is stated to acute anxiety, depression, and stress advised complete rest and avoidance PGIMS Rohtak as well as Sir submits that the Bank is fully aware yet has failed to extend any accommodation petitioner to unjust psychological buttress his arguments, learned counsel on the judgment of the Division Antonio B. Furtado v. Chairman & Managing Others, reported as 1986 LIC 613; the Khitish Chandra Rebidas v. 2005 (2) LLJ 1015; and the judgment Managing Director, State Bank of view of the foregoing, counsel for appropriate writ of Certiorari quashing 10.11.2023 and 13.02.2024, and for a consequential Bank to permit the petitioner to engage ongoing disciplinary proceedings. 6 (O&M) that such discretion should be respondent has failed to assign petitioner’s request. to the deteriorating medical be under constant medical stress-induced disorders, and of mental strain by medical Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New aware of the petitioner’s health accommodation or relief, thereby and procedural hardship. counsel for the petitioner has Division Bench of the Bombay High Managing Director, Bank of the judgment of the Calcutta Union of India & Others, judgment of this Court in Anil of Patiala, reported as 2016 for the petitioner prays for the quashing the impugned orders consequential direction to the engage a legal practitioner of his MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document Arguments of the 19. Per respondent Bank contrary to settled domestic enquiries, favour of a delinquent Such representation, regulations, or standing 20. Referring out that the disciplinary regulated by the which has statutory the parties. Clause representation in entitlement upon Instead, Clause practitioner ‘may ‘only’ where, in sufficiently complex 21. It is petitioner are not pertaining to alleged Officer appointed has been appointed CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) the Respondents Contra, learned counsel appearing Bank submits that the petitioner’s prayer settled principles of law. It is contended enquiries, there exists no inherent, delinquent employee to be represented representation, it is submitted, is governed standing orders applicable to the ferring to the facts of the present disciplinary proceedings initiated the Memorandum of Settlement statutory force under the Industrial Dis Clause 12 of the said MoS, which in disciplinary enquiries, does upon the delinquent employee to 12(a)(ii) specifically provides that may’ be permitted by the competent in its discretion, the circumstances complex or exceptional to justify such is further argued that the charges not of a legal or technical nature alleged irregularities in discharge appointed by the Bank is not a legally trained appointed to represent the Bank in the 7 (O&M) appearing on behalf of the prayer is wholly untenable and contended that in the context of vested, or absolute right in represented by a legal practitioner. governed strictly by the rules, establishment. present case, learned counsel points initiated against the petitioner are Settlement (MoS) dated 10.04.2002, Disputes Act, 1947 and binds which governs the manner of does not confer any automatic engage a legal practitioner. that the engagement of a legal competent authority of the Bank circumstances of the case are found to be such indulgence. charges levelled against the nature but are purely factual, discharge of duties. The Enquiry trained person, and no lawyer the proceedings. Moreover, the MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document Bank had offered Award Staff member but the petitioner the rejection of stated to be a reasoned, the competent authority. 22. In authoritative pronouncement Railway Protection In the said decision, representation in justice unless interpreting Rule representation is Advocate does further emphasized regard to the nature demand of the delinquent 23. Further Madras High Court 910, which considered applying the principles no vested right in representation. CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) offered the petitioner the option of member or by two specifically named petitioner chose not to avail of either alternative. of the petitioner’s request for engagement reasoned, lawful, and proportionate uthority. support of these submissions, pronouncement of the Hon’ble Protection Force & Ors. v. K. Raghuram decision, the Apex Court held in departmental enquiries is not expressly provided for by the Rule 153(8), the Court observed is not absolute but conditional, not in itself amount to denial of emphasized that discretion in this regard nature and complexity of the charges, delinquent officer. Further reliance is placed on the Court in V. Mathivanan v. State Bank considered Clause 12 of the very same principles laid down in K. Raghuram in an employee facing disciplinary The Court held that even when 8 (O&M) of being represented by any named Union representatives, alternative. In such a scenario, engagement of an Advocate is proportionate exercise of discretion by submissions, reliance is placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.G., Raghuram Babu, AIR 2008 SC 1958. held that the right to legal not a component of natural the governing rules. While observed that the grant of such conditional, and refusal to permit an of a fair hearing. The Court regard must be exercised with due charges, and not merely on the the judgment of the Hon’ble Bank of India, 2012 (1) CWC same MoS and reiterated, by Raghuram Babu (supra), that there is disciplinary action to insist upon legal when the rules permit such MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document representation, it the nature of the 24. The the Hon’ble Supreme Ramesh Chandra principle that domestic by the employer’s representation through Article 226 of the 25. Lastly, liable to be dismissed. of statutory rules, exceptional hardship. of the MoS, is supported judicial interference. be dismissed. Consideration 26. The twofold and are the disciplinary under:- (i) Whether, petitioner reason CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) it remains subject to regulatory control the charges does not require legal expertise. The respondent Bank also places reliance Supreme Court in Rajasthan Marudhara Chandra Meena, (2022) 3 SCC 44, where domestic enquiries are a matter of employer’s service rules. Unless such rules through an Advocate, no such claim the Constitution. Lastly, it is argued that the writ petition dismissed. The petitioner has failed rules, any breach of natural justice, hardship. The discretion exercised by supported by established jurisprudence interference. The respondent, therefore, The core issues that fall for determination intrinsically linked to the question disciplinary proceedings instituted against Whether, on the facts and circumstances petitioner is entitled, either as a reason of exceptional circumstances, 9 (O&M) control and may be denied if expertise. reliance upon the judgment of Marudhara Gramin Bank v. where the Court reaffirmed the of internal discipline governed rules specifically provide for claim can be entertained under petition is devoid of merit and is to demonstrate any violation justice, or any circumstances of by the Bank, as per Clause 12 jurisprudence and does not call for therefore, prays that the writ petition determination before this Court are question of procedural fairness in against the petitioner and are as circumstances of the present case, the matter of legal right or by circumstances, to be represented by a MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document legal respondent (ii) Whether conjunction proceedings, natural fair 27. Adverting whether the petitioner inquiry necessitates certified standing Memorandum of conduct of disciplinary aforesaid purpose, 10.04.2002 is reproduced 12. The procedure (a) An employee likely forth fixed for prepare that he appear examine CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) legal practitioner in the departmental pondent Bank? Whether the denial of such legal representation, conjunction with the overall conduct proceedings, has occasioned a breach natural justice, thereby resulting in fair and reasonable opportunity to defend Adverting to the first issue, the resolution petitioner is entitled to legal representation necessitates a careful examination of standing orders, and, most significantly, of Settlement (MoS) dated 10.04.2002, disciplinary proceedings within the pose, Clause 12(a) of the Memorandum reproduced herein below for ready procedure in such cases shall be as employee against whom disciplinary to be taken shall be given a the circumstances appearing against for enquiry, sufficient time be given prepare and give his explanation as also he may wish to tender in his defence. appear before the Officer conducting examine any witness on whose evidence 10 (O&M) departmental inquiry conducted by the representation, when viewed in conduct of the disciplinary breach of the principles of the petitioner being denied a defend himself? resolution of the question as to representation in the departmental the governing service rules, significantly, Clause 12 of the applicable 10.04.2002, which regulates the the respondent Bank. For the Memorandum of Settlement dated ready reference: as follows :- disciplinary action is proposed or charge-sheet clearly setting against him and a date shall be given to him to enable him to also to produce any evidence defence. He shall be permitted to conducting the enquiry, to cross- evidence the charge rests and to MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document examine shatll (i) (x) employees the commencement (y) where bank registered employed OR (ii) at federation affiliated; OR (iii) with He shall proposed him. 28. A Settlement reveals shall be permitted registered trade where not a member, bank in which he CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) examine witnesses and produce other shatll also be permitted to be defended (x) by a representative of a registered employees of which he is a member commencement of the enquiry. where the employee is not a member employees on the aforesaid date, registered trade union of employees employed at the request of the said union by federation or all India Organisation affiliated; with the Bank's permission, by a lawyer. shall also be given a hearing as proposed punishment in case any charge careful perusal of Clause 12 reveals that the Clause provides that permitted to be defended either: (i) union of bank employees of member, by a representative of a registered he is employed; (iii) alternatively, 11 (O&M) other evidence in his defence. He defended - registered trade union of bank on the date first notified for member of any trade union of date, by a representative of a employees of the bank in which he is by a representative of the state Organisation to which such union is lawyer. as regards the nature of the charge is established against 12 of the Memorandum of that the delinquent employee (i) by a representative of a which he is a member; (ii) registered trade union of the alternatively, at the request of the said MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document union, by a representative which the unio lawyer. 29. In any of natural justice oneself. Being quasi done but must also require being given innocence; an opportunity allowed opportunity in his defence punishment should noticed by a constitutional Major U.R. Bhatt extract is as under 5. As pointed out by this court in Khem Chand v. Union of India [(1958) SCR 1080] in dealing with what is contemplated by reasonabl Constitution under consideration includes : (a) an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told wha charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) representative of a state federation union is affiliated; or (iv) with the any disciplinary proceedings that justice demand that a reasonable and quasi judicial proceedings by nature, also seem to be done. The reasonable given an opportunity to deny opportunity to defend himself in opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and an opportunity to defend should not be imposed. The above constitutional bench of Hon’ble Supreme Bhatt Vs. U.O.I. reported as AIR under : As pointed out by this court in Khem Chand v. Union of India [(1958) SCR 1080] in dealing with what is contemplated by reasonable opportunity to show cause in Article 311(2) of the Constitution “the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provision under consideration includes : (a) an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told wha charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence 12 (O&M) federation or all-India organisation to the Bank’s permission, by a that are instituted, the principles and fair opportunity to defend nature, justice must not only be reasonable opportunity would thus his guilt and establish his in inquiry by not only being witnesses but also to lead evidence defend as to why the proposed above principles were specifically Supreme Court in the matter of 1962 SC 1344. The relevant As pointed out by this court in Khem Chand v. Union of India [(1958) SCR 1080] in dealing with what is contemplated by e opportunity to show cause in Article 311(2) of the “the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provision under consideration includes : (a) an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross- examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence; and finally MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and communicates the same to the Government servant”. The content of the reasonable opportunity under Article 311 of the Constitution is the India Act. 30. Whether question of fact opportunity has Supreme Court reported as AIR 31. It is to have assistance be decided on Jogarao v. State representation by relevant extract 13. Every member of the civil service holds his employment at the pleasure of the State. But dismiss him is controlled by the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. Except in the cases governed by the proviso to sub CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and communicates the same to the Government servant”. The content of the reasonable opportunity under Article 311 of the Constitution is the same as in Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act. Whether a person has been given fact and this Court has the power has been given or not as per the in the matter of Sardar Kapur AIR 1960 SC 493. is held by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh assistance of a lawyer is a part of natural a case to case basis. It was State of Madras, reported as by an Advocate can be claimed in is as under : Every member of the civil service holds his employment at the pleasure of the State. But the undoubted power of the State to dismiss him is controlled by the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. Except in the cases governed by the proviso to sub 13 (O&M) (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his of the charges proved against the government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and communicates the same to the Government servant”. The content of the reasonable opportunity under Article 311 of the same as in Section 240(3) of the Government of (emphasis supplied) given a fair hearing or not is a power to see whether a fair the judgment of the Hon’ble Kapur Singh Vs. Union of India Pradesh High Court that right natural justice but the same has to held in the matter of M.V. AIR 1957 AP 197 that in special circumstances. The Every member of the civil service holds his employment at the the undoubted power of the State to dismiss him is controlled by the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution. Except in the cases governed by the proviso to sub- MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document clause (2) of Article 311, such a servant cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority appointed and that he could be removed only after he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The action proposed to be taken in regard to a civil is held and after the authority concerned comes to a tentative conclusion on the merits, for, the punishment would necessarily depend upon the gravity of the offence committed by the civil servant. Therefore, wh the enquiry, whether it be through one of its executive officers or through a Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, the entire enquiry from the beginning till the punishment is imposed on the officer is one process. It is an inquiry held by the authority empowered to remove the servant. Though the enquiry may have to be held in two stages, one up to the time the authority comes to a conclusion on the question of the offence committed by the civil servant and th from the stage notice is given to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, enquiry will have to be scrutinised by ascertaining whether reasonable opportunity is given to the servant to show caus the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The opportunity to show cause is qualified by the word “reasonable”. It is for the Court on the facts of each case to scrutinise the entire record to come to a conclusion whether such a reasonable civil servant. the civil servant to defend himself by examining witnesses and by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, it would be unreasonable to compel the authori after the second stage is reached. opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) clause (2) of Article 311, such a servant cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed and that he could be removed only after he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The action proposed to be taken in regard to a civil servant will be known only after an enquiry is held and after the authority concerned comes to a tentative conclusion on the merits, for, the punishment would necessarily depend upon the gravity of the offence committed by the civil servant. Therefore, whatever machinery is provided by the State for the enquiry, whether it be through one of its executive officers or through a Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, the entire enquiry from the beginning till the punishment is imposed on the officer is ocess. It is an inquiry held by the authority empowered to remove the servant. Though the enquiry may have to be held in two stages, one up to the time the authority comes to a conclusion on the question of the offence committed by the civil servant and th from the stage notice is given to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, enquiry will have to be scrutinised by ascertaining whether reasonable opportunity is given to the servant to show caus the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The opportunity to show cause is qualified by the word “reasonable”. It is for the Court on the facts of each case to scrutinise the entire record to come to a conclusion whether such a reasonable opportunity was given to the civil servant. If, as a matter of fact, every opportunity was given to the civil servant to defend himself by examining witnesses and by examining the prosecution witnesses, it would be unreasonable to compel the authority to repeat the entire inquiry after the second stage is reached. opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken 14 (O&M) clause (2) of Article 311, such a servant cannot be dismissed or subordinate to that by which he was appointed and that he could be removed only after he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The action proposed to be servant will be known only after an enquiry is held and after the authority concerned comes to a tentative conclusion on the merits, for, the punishment would necessarily depend upon the gravity of the offence committed by the civil atever machinery is provided by the State for the enquiry, whether it be through one of its executive officers or through a Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, the entire enquiry from the beginning till the punishment is imposed on the officer is ocess. It is an inquiry held by the authority empowered to remove the servant. Though the enquiry may have to be held in two stages, one up to the time the authority comes to a conclusion on the question of the offence committed by the civil servant and the other from the stage notice is given to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him, the entire process of the enquiry will have to be scrutinised by ascertaining whether reasonable opportunity is given to the servant to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. The opportunity to show cause is qualified by the word “reasonable”. It is for the Court on the facts of each case to scrutinise the entire record to come to a opportunity was given to the If, as a matter of fact, every opportunity was given to the civil servant to defend himself by examining witnesses and by examining the prosecution witnesses, it would be ty to repeat the entire inquiry after the second stage is reached. It is true that reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document includes an opportunity to canvass the correctness of the reasons for taking the proposed action order requiring the civil servant to show cause should give not only the punishment proposed to be inflicted on him but also the reasons for coming to that conclusion. A civil servant can show cause by pleading tha committed by it or by violating the principles of natural justice such as preventing him from examining his witnesses or cross the witnesses who spoke against him or similar others. If t of the Tribunal is the basis for the proposed punishment, he can also attack the correctness of the finding by showing that the finding was not based on the evidence or is not supported by evidence. would be unreasonable to compel the aut it were, one up to the stage of the notice contemplated by Article 311 and the repetition of it again after notice, though in a particular case, if the inquiry is vitiated by any of the reasons mentioned above, a further inquir put it shortly, the entire proceedings of the inquiry must be looked into carefully to ascertain whether reasonable opportunity within the meaning of Article 311 is afforded to a civil servant or not. 32. It was not warrant representation rule giving a right by it, as per the I.G. Police, Punjab 33. The also show that the CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) includes an opportunity to canvass the correctness of the reasons for taking the proposed action. The authority should necessarily in its order requiring the civil servant to show cause should give not only the punishment proposed to be inflicted on him but also the reasons for coming to that conclusion. A civil servant can show cause by pleading that the Tribunal's report is vitiated by gross irregularities committed by it or by violating the principles of natural justice such as preventing him from examining his witnesses or cross the witnesses who spoke against him or similar others. If t of the Tribunal is the basis for the proposed punishment, he can also attack the correctness of the finding by showing that the finding was not based on the evidence or is not supported by evidence. would be unreasonable to compel the aut it were, one up to the stage of the notice contemplated by Article 311 and the repetition of it again after notice, though in a particular case, if the inquiry is vitiated by any of the reasons mentioned above, a further inquiry may reasonably be asked by the civil servant. put it shortly, the entire proceedings of the inquiry must be looked into carefully to ascertain whether reasonable opportunity within the meaning of Article 311 is afforded to a civil servant or not. was held that even though principles representation by a professional lawyer right of representation, the right of judgment of this Court in the matter Punjab reported as AIR 1963 P&H The judicial pronouncements relied the same have been passed in the 15 (O&M) includes an opportunity to canvass the correctness of the reasons for . The authority should necessarily in its order requiring the civil servant to show cause should give not only the punishment proposed to be inflicted on him but also the reasons for coming to that conclusion. A civil servant can show cause by t the Tribunal's report is vitiated by gross irregularities committed by it or by violating the principles of natural justice such as preventing him from examining his witnesses or cross-examining the witnesses who spoke against him or similar others. If the finding of the Tribunal is the basis for the proposed punishment, he can also attack the correctness of the finding by showing that the finding was not based on the evidence or is not supported by evidence. But it would be unreasonable to compel the authority to have two trials as it were, one up to the stage of the notice contemplated by Article 311 and the repetition of it again after notice, though in a particular case, if the inquiry is vitiated by any of the reasons mentioned above, y may reasonably be asked by the civil servant. To put it shortly, the entire proceedings of the inquiry must be looked into carefully to ascertain whether reasonable opportunity within the meaning of Article 311 is afforded to a civil servant or not. (emphasis supplied) principles of natural justice may lawyer but if there is a service of the servant will be governed matter of S. Harjit Singh Vs. P&H 90. relied upon by the respondents the circumstances where the MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document rules did not stipulate the case in hand, parties and as admitted engagement has applicable rules 34. While respondents has employee does not the argument that claimed and only lawyer can be asked the same shows engagement/representation. clause brings all elect an option. Clause 12(a) (iii) Instead, the only circumstances, the prerogative to veto by an employee consideration that clause for representation such provision existed CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) ipulate any assistance of a legal practitioner. hand, the memorandum of understanding admitted to be binding by both has been made but with the permission do provide for being represented While justifying its decision to deny has argued that the same can be not have a representative in the that it is a preferential manner that only when first two eventualities asked for is tested against the provision. shows that it nowhere provides engagement/representation. Rather, the use of the all three at par and vests a discretion option. If the intent behind the settlement (iii) would have been made subject only restriction imposed is ‘permission the discretion conferred is not to veto each request but to examine employee claiming representation by the that the power should be exercised. representation by a lawyer, the precedents existed cannot be cited as a binding 16 (O&M) practitioner. Undisputedly, in understanding executed between the both the parties, a provision for sion of the Bank. Hence, the represented by a lawyer. deny permission, counsel for the be invoked only when the first two categories. Hence, that a representation can be fail, that representation by a provision. A plain reading of provides for any sequential the expression ‘or’ after each discretion with the employee to settlement would have been such, subject to such an eventuality. ‘permission of the Bank’. Under such to be exercised as an absolute examine the circumstances pleaded lawyer. It is only upon such exercised. Once the rules stipulate a precedents in matters where no binding precedent. MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document 35. The representation by to be read as a unbridled right to situation, the same justice. 36. In the authority declining reads thus:- “Please refer to your letter no.1432 dated 02.11.2023 received on 09.11.2023, forwarding the request of captioned CSE engaging Advocate as his Defense Representative to defend his case during Departmental Enquiry process. Our reply on the request of the CSE as under: Trade Union and the denial thereof is requi to the Bank to take a view for considering allowing a Lawyer if permissible otherwise. 2. given in the Memorandum of Bipartite Settlement 10.04.2002. 3. factual position as final decision is to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority by applying his mind independently. CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) The object behind incorporation by a lawyer was to come to the aid dead letter. The employee should to determine who would represent same may be itself amount to denial the said background, the order declining legal representation needs Please refer to your letter no.1432 dated 02.11.2023 received on 09.11.2023, forwarding the request of captioned CSE engaging Advocate as his Defense Representative to defend his case during Departmental Enquiry process. Our reply on the request of the CSE as under: The copy of the request letter approaching the registered Trade Union and the denial thereof is requi to the Bank to take a view for considering allowing a Lawyer if permissible otherwise. The Departmental Enquiry is not a legal procedure as given in the Memorandum of Bipartite Settlement 10.04.2002. The point is based on assump factual position as final decision is to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority by applying his mind independently. 17 (O&M) of such a clause providing aid of an employee and is not should not display an absolute represent an employee, as in some denial of principles of natural order passed by the disciplinary to be examined. The same Please refer to your letter no.1432 dated 02.11.2023 received on 09.11.2023, forwarding the request of captioned CSE for engaging Advocate as his Defense Representative to defend his case during Departmental Enquiry process. Our reply on the The copy of the request letter approaching the registered Trade Union and the denial thereof is required to be submitted to the Bank to take a view for considering allowing a Lawyer if The Departmental Enquiry is not a legal procedure as given in the Memorandum of Bipartite Settlement 10.04.2002. The point is based on assumption and does not carry any factual position as final decision is to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority by applying his mind independently. MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document 4. Circular no.: CDO/P&HRD relevant excerpts are reproduced hereunder: CSE shall be defended by: 5. mentally fit to understand the charges framed against him in Charge Sheet. Therefore, CSE be advised to join the Departmental Enquiry after taking the fitness certificate from the concerned Doctor. 37. During reasons as under: “I have considered the submissions made in your appeal and have also perused the relevant Clauses/Provisions of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002. CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) The matter was examined as such, please be guided by Circular no.: CDO/P&HRD-IR/66/2016 relevant excerpts are reproduced hereunder: CSE shall be defended by: a) by a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry. Bank employees on the afor a representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank in which he is employed. b) At the request of the said union by a representative of the state federation or all India Organization to which such union is affiliated. CSE advised that he is under treatment and is not mentally fit to understand the charges framed against him in Charge Sheet. Therefore, CSE be advised to join the Departmental Enquiry after taking the fitness certificate from the concerned Doctor.” During appeal, the Appellate Authority under:- I have considered the submissions made in your appeal and have also perused the relevant Clauses/Provisions of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002. 18 (O&M) The matter was examined as such, please be guided by IR/66/2016-17 dated 09.09.2016, relevant excerpts are reproduced hereunder: by a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry. Bank employees on the aforesaid date, by a representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank in which he is employed. At the request of the said union by a representative of the state federation or all India Organization to which such union is affiliated. CSE advised that he is under treatment and is not mentally fit to understand the charges framed against him in Charge Sheet. Therefore, CSE be advised to join the Departmental Enquiry after taking the fitness certificate from Authority rejected the appeal by I have considered the submissions made in your appeal and have also perused the relevant Clauses/Provisions of Bipartite MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document Departmental action in your settlement/ agreement dated 10:04 2002 the relevant procedure has been provided in clause 12 of the Bipartite Settlement which reads as under: 12. The procedure in such cases shall be as follows: (a) An employee against wh or is likely to be taken shall be given a charge instructions regarding charge sheet are contained in Annexure D) clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and a date shall be fixed for given to him to enable him to prepare and give his explanation as also to produce any evidence that he may wish to tender in his defense. He shall be permitted to appear before the Officer conducting the enquiry, to cross evidence the charge rests and to examine witnesses and produce other evidence in his defense. He shall also be permitted to be defended (i) CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) Departmental action in your case is governed by Bipartile settlement/ agreement dated 10:04 2002 the relevant procedure has been provided in clause 12 of the Bipartite Settlement which reads as under:-. 12. The procedure in such cases shall be as follows: (a) An employee against whom disciplinary action is proposed or is likely to be taken shall be given a charge instructions regarding charge sheet are contained in Annexure D) clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and a date shall be fixed for enquiry, sufficient time being given to him to enable him to prepare and give his explanation as also to produce any evidence that he may wish to tender in his defense. He shall be permitted to appear before the Officer conducting the enquiry, to cross-ex evidence the charge rests and to examine witnesses and produce other evidence in his defense. He shall also be permitted to be defended- by a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a mem notified for the commencement of the enquiry. bank employees on the aforesaid date, by a representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank in which he is employed; 19 (O&M) case is governed by Bipartile settlement/ agreement dated 10:04 2002 the relevant procedure has been provided in clause 12 of the Bipartite Settlement 12. The procedure in such cases shall be as follows:- om disciplinary action is proposed or is likely to be taken shall be given a charge-sheet (Detailed instructions regarding charge sheet are contained in Annexure- D) clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against enquiry, sufficient time being given to him to enable him to prepare and give his explanation as also to produce any evidence that he may wish to tender in his defense. He shall be permitted to appear before the Officer examine any witness on whose evidence the charge rests and to examine witnesses and produce other evidence in his defense. He shall also be by a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry. bank employees on the aforesaid date, by a representative of a registered trade union of employees of the bank in which he is employed; MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document (ii) (iii) Although the above clause provide that a charge employee may be permitted to be defended with the Ba permission', by a lawyer, however, I am of the view that there is no absolute or vested right to any charge representation through a lawyer. You have requested to permit representation through a lawyer on the ground that I have considered your request and from the perusal of request as well as appeal filed by you, I observe that it is not a case CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) OR (ii) at the request of the said union by a rep state federation or all India Organization to which such union is affiliated; OR (iii) with the Bank's permission, by a lawyer. Although the above clause provide that a charge employee may be permitted to be defended with the Ba permission', by a lawyer, however, I am of the view that there is no absolute or vested right to any charge representation through a lawyer. You have requested to permit representation through a lawyer on the ground that (i) None of the employer/ leader has consented to represent your case (ii) The allegation made in Charge complex nature (iii) Considering the allegation, you may lose your job (iv) Bank has no predicament to allow the application for representation through lawyer (v) It is physically impossible for you to conduct and defend yourself. I have considered your request and from the perusal of request as well as appeal filed by you, I observe that it is not a case 20 (O&M) at the request of the said union by a representative of the state federation or all India Organization to which such with the Bank's permission, by a lawyer. Although the above clause provide that a charge-sheeted employee may be permitted to be defended with the Bank's permission', by a lawyer, however, I am of the view that there is no absolute or vested right to any charge-sheeted employee for You have requested to permit representation through a lawyer ne of the employer/ leader has consented to The allegation made in Charge-Sheet are of Considering the allegation, you may lose your job Bank has no predicament to allow the application ation through lawyer It is physically impossible for you to conduct and I have considered your request and from the perusal of request as well as appeal filed by you, I observe that it is not a case MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document where you are seeking permission t because the Disciplinary Authority. Inquiring Authority or the Presenting Authority are from legal background. It is also not a case where you are being pitted against a legally trained mind, which also may justify granting permis through a lawyer. Therefore, I am of the view that it would not be justifiable to permit you to avail services of a lawyer as you are a member of a Trade union, you may avail services of representative of Trade union as provided in 38. The lawyer cited following counsel as: Firstly persons none of the employee/leaders has consented to represent the case of applicant. Thus the opportunity provided vide letter dt. 23.07.2018 of Regional Manager and provision of Bipartite Settlement dt. 10.0 of the member of registered union/Association and named persons by regional Manager has given the consent to represent. CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) where you are seeking permission t because the Disciplinary Authority. Inquiring Authority or the Presenting Authority are from legal background. It is also not a case where you are being pitted against a legally trained mind, which also may justify granting permis through a lawyer. Therefore, I am of the view that it would not be justifiable to permit you to avail services of a lawyer as you are a member of a Trade union, you may avail services of representative of Trade union as provided in Clause 12(1) & 12(ii). The petitioner, while submitting his following reasons:- “That the applicant seeks the permission to engage the counsel as: Firstly, the applicant has already approached the named persons and other office bearers of the Union/Association and none of the employee/leaders has consented to represent the case of applicant. Thus the opportunity provided vide letter dt. 23.07.2018 of Regional Manager and provision of Bipartite Settlement dt. 10.04.2002 has been rendered redundant as none of the member of registered union/Association and named persons by regional Manager has given the consent to represent. 21 (O&M) where you are seeking permission to be defended by a lawyer because the Disciplinary Authority. Inquiring Authority or the Presenting Authority are from legal background. It is also not a case where you are being pitted against a legally trained mind, which also may justify granting permission to be represented Therefore, I am of the view that it would not be justifiable to permit you to avail services of a lawyer as you are a member of a Trade union, you may avail services of representative of Clause 12(1) & 12(ii).” his request for engagement of a That the applicant seeks the permission to engage the , the applicant has already approached the named and other office bearers of the Union/Association and none of the employee/leaders has consented to represent the case of applicant. Thus the opportunity provided vide letter dt. Thus the opportunity provided vide letter dt. 23.07.2018 of Regional Manager and provision of Bipartite 4.2002 has been rendered redundant as none of the member of registered union/Association and named persons by regional Manager has given the consent to MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document Secondly complex nature as allegations of fra misappropriation are levelled against the applicant and multiple documents are needed to be proved by/against the applicant which will need appropriate legal knowledge and experience. Thirdly penalty, the applicant might loose his job/livelihood and reputation including the right to live with dignity, which is substantial/fundamental right of all the citizen as per the Constitution of India. Fourthly, for representation through counsel as the same is provided as per the Bipartite Agreement dt. 10.04.2002. An authority to grant permission cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. Fifthly and defend himself in the department proceedings as since last one year the applicant is having anxiety attacks and acute depression and the pressure of defending the departmental proceedings against himself can prove to be fatal for his metal heath. The applicant is under regular treatment from PGI Rohtak and Sri Ganga Ram Hosptial New Delhi for the same. and he has been time and again advised rest and no stress by the doctor. The fact is already verified by the Bank. The copy of CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) Secondly, the allegation made in the chargesheet are of complex nature as allegations of fra misappropriation are levelled against the applicant and multiple documents are needed to be proved by/against the applicant which will need appropriate legal knowledge and experience. Thirdly, considering the nature of allegation and provi penalty, the applicant might loose his job/livelihood and reputation including the right to live with dignity, which is substantial/fundamental right of all the citizen as per the Constitution of India. Fourthly, the Bank has no predicament to all for representation through counsel as the same is provided as per the Bipartite Agreement dt. 10.04.2002. An authority to grant permission cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. Fifthly, it is physically impossible for the applican and defend himself in the department proceedings as since last one year the applicant is having anxiety attacks and acute depression and the pressure of defending the departmental proceedings against himself can prove to be fatal for his metal heath. The applicant is under regular treatment from PGI Rohtak and Sri Ganga Ram Hosptial New Delhi for the same. and he has been time and again advised rest and no stress by the doctor. The fact is already verified by the Bank. The copy of 22 (O&M) , the allegation made in the chargesheet are of complex nature as allegations of fraud, forgery and misappropriation are levelled against the applicant and multiple documents are needed to be proved by/against the applicant which will need appropriate legal knowledge and , considering the nature of allegation and provisions of penalty, the applicant might loose his job/livelihood and reputation including the right to live with dignity, which is substantial/fundamental right of all the citizen as per the the Bank has no predicament to allow the application for representation through counsel as the same is provided as per the Bipartite Agreement dt. 10.04.2002. An authority to grant permission cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner. , it is physically impossible for the applicant to conduct and defend himself in the department proceedings as since last one year the applicant is having anxiety attacks and acute depression and the pressure of defending the departmental proceedings against himself can prove to be fatal for his metal heath. The applicant is under regular treatment from PGI Rohtak and Sri Ganga Ram Hosptial New Delhi for the same. and he has been time and again advised rest and no stress by the doctor. The fact is already verified by the Bank. The copy of MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document Medical recor Hence, as per the current medical condition, the applicant is not at all capable to defend his case during the departmental proceedings. 39. Evidently, reasons cited by not valid. Clearly application and fear that presence based rejection cannot 40. Given closer to the ratio held by the Division reasons and circumstances guidance. 41. Since ruled on the circumstances Advocate, this Court are factual aspects comment by Court, outcome. 42. The order dated 10.11.2023 CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) Medical record is attached alongwith the present application. Hence, as per the current medical condition, the applicant is not at all capable to defend his case during the departmental proceedings.” Evidently, the respondent-authorities by him or record any finding as to Clearly the orders do not reflect instead reflect an established mindset presence of a lawyer may delay the proceedings. cannot be upheld as a valid reason Given the reasons cited by the petitioner, ratio in the matter of Anil Bamania Division Bench that it be not treated circumstances mentioned therein Since the impugned orders have circumstances cited by the petitioner Court refrains from commenting aspects to be verified and ascertained Court, on merits of the claim, may The present writ petition is accordingly 10.11.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed 23 (O&M) d is attached alongwith the present application. Hence, as per the current medical condition, the applicant is not at all capable to defend his case during the departmental authorities did not delve into the to the same and why they are application of mind to the mindset of rejection, under a proceedings. Such apprehension reason under all circumstances. petitioner, the facts in hand are Bamania (supra). Even though it was treated as a precedent, however, the can still be looked into for not examined, discussed or petitioner while claiming for an commenting on the same, since the same ascertained at the first instance. Any may have an effect on final accordingly allowed. The impugned passed by the Disciplinary MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document Authority and the Appellate Authority Disciplinary Authority the claim on its merits. 43. All 12.08.2025 Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CWP-9290-2024 (O&M) the order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure Authority are set aside. The matt Authority to pass a fresh order as merits. pending civil misc. application(s), (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 24 (O&M) (Annexure P-10) passed by the matter is remanded to the per law and after examining application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE MANGAL SINGH 2025.08.29 14:33 I am the author of this document