[2026:RJ-JP:7594] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2470/2026 Manish Sharma S/o. Shri Ramkaran Sharma, Resident of A-154, Shiv Shakti Colony, Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Gramin Bank through its Chairman, Head Office, Jaipur Camp Office Tulsi Tower, 9th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.) 2. Regional Manager, Regional Business Office Jaipur-2, Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Opposite Police Headquarter Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Shri Upendra Shekhawat, Inquiring Authority SMGS-V, Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Regional Business Office, 274, Jambeshwar Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2479/2026 Manish Sharma S/o. Shri Ramkaran Sharma, Resident Of A- 154, Shiv Shakti Colony, Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan Gramin Bank through its Chairman, Head Office, Jaipur Camp Office Tulsi Tower, 9th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.) 2. Regional Manager, Regional Business Office Jaipur-2, Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Opposite Police Headquarter Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Shri Abhimanyu Charan, Inquiring Authority SMGS-V, Regional Business Office, Jaipur-2, Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Opposite Police Headquarter Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mitesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala [2026:RJ-JP:7594] (2 of 4) [CW-2470/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 17/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the above two writ petitions by raising a grievance that despite there being no specific prohibition, he was not allowed to be represented through a legal practitioner during the departmental enquiry, which is being conducted by the respondent-Bank. 2. The prayer made by the petitioner was seriously opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank by relying upon Regulation 44 of Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank Service Regulations, 2010, as well as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (RMGB) & Anr. vs. Ramesh Chandra Meena & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.7451/2021 decided on 04.01.2022. He also relies upon Clause 8 of Handbook on Vigilance Administration & Disciplinary Action. 3. Thereupon, on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in case, the respondents cannot allow a legal practitioner as defence representative then the petitioner may be allowed to be represented through a departmental representation i.e. through an employee already working in respondent-Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits they have already supplied list of as many as eight employees of respondent- Bank, who generally conduct departmental enquiry as defence representatives. [2026:RJ-JP:7594] (3 of 4) [CW-2470/2026] 5. One another grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that they have two different enquiries which are being prosecuted against the petitioner at Jodhpur & Pali. Petitioner is suffering from 'Mixed Anxiety Depression Syndrome' and on account of his ailing health, he may not be in a position to visit Pali & Jodhpur. 6. On instructions from respondents, learned counsel for the respondents has agreed to conduct enquiry at Jaipur Head Office of the respondent-Bank. 7. In view of above consensus between the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to submit his specific option for opting a defence representative amongst the name suggested by respondent-Bank within a period of 3 days from today. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank shall pass an appropriate order for appointing the person opted by the petitioner as defence representative and after appointment of defence representative, 7 days' time shall be granted to the petitioner to prepare the enquiry matter with his defence representative and the date of enquiry shall be fixed accordingly. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on behalf of petitioner, undertakes to participate in the enquiry proceedings regularly and not to take any adjournment. 9. Petitioner shall be at liberty to produce his defence and evidence as well as to cross-examine management witnesses during the enquiry with the help of defence representative. 10. In case, the petitioner fails to opt for defence representative or do not participate in the enquiry proceedings or [2026:RJ-JP:7594] (4 of 4) [CW-2470/2026] seeks to avoid the same, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed further ex-parte. 11. As agreed between the parties, the enquiry in respect of both the charge-sheets shall be conducted at Jaipur Head Office of respondent-Bank. 12. In view of the contesting long ongoing issues, it is directed that the enquiry shall be completed expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from today after affording due opportunity of hearing. 13. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. 14. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 15. Copy of this order be placed in connected file. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/197(s)-198(s)