https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302773 A domestic enquiry under a service code did not confer an unrestricted right to be defended by a representative of the employee's choice; representation was limited to a registered union or association of the relevant bank's employees, and a lawyer only with permission. Denial of an outsider representative therefore did not vitiate the enquiry. The challenge to dismissal also failed because the employee allowed the order to remain unchallenged for years, had already participated in the enquiry with knowledge of the refusal, and showed no real prejudice from the asserted breach of natural justice. On the principles of delay, acquiescence and absence of prejudice, the dismissal was sustained and the employee's challenge rejected. en-us Tue, 16 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jun 2026 10:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302773 A domestic enquiry under a service code did not confer an unrestricted right to be defended by a representative of the employee's choice; representation was limited to a registered union or association of the relevant bank's employees, and a lawyer only with permission. Denial of an outsider representative therefore did not vitiate the enquiry. The challenge to dismissal also failed because the employee allowed the order to remain unchallenged for years, had already participated in the enquiry with knowledge of the refusal, and showed no real prejudice from the asserted breach of natural justice. On the principles of delay, acquiescence and absence of prejudice, the dismissal was sustained and the employee's challenge rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302773