Bank of Cochin Service Code: Clause 22(ix)(a) Chapter VIII – Violation of – Disciplinary proceedings against the Bank Manager for sanctioning advances in violation of the Head Office instructions causing financial loss to the Bank – Bank manager not allowed to be represented by an office bearer of an employees association of another organisation – Thereafter, Manager dismissed from service – Challenge to, after almost four and a half years – Both the Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the disciplinary proceedings against the Bank Manager – On appeal, held: Observations and findings in the disciplinary proceedings on the aspect of irregularities regarding exceeding his authority in the grant of advances, clear and undisputed – Bank Manager was aware that his request to be represented by a representative of his own choice had been rejected – Even then he took time and decided not to file an appeal before the Board of Directors against the order of the inquiry officer rejecting his request – On the alibi, the Manager did not furnish any details or particulars of cases or instances and had refused to lead evidence – As per Clause 22(ix)(a), an officer can also be permitted to be defended by a representative of a registered union/association of ‘bank’ employees, which means an union/association of the employees of the Bank of Cochin and not of any or other banks – Provision does not stipulate that the employee requires permission from any authority or the inquiry officer for representation – Furthermore, the dismissal order remained unchallenged for more than four years – Though the Service Code does not stipulate any time period within which the appeal may be preferred but it should be within a reasonable time depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case – Right not exercised for a long time is non-existent – Doctrine of delay and laches as well as acquiescence are applied to non-suit such litigants – In the instant case, challenge to the order of dismissalfrom service by way of appeal was after four years, which was highly belated and beyond justifiable time – Court is to consciously examine whether a party has chosen to sit over the matter and has woken up to gain any advantage and benefit – These facets, when proven, must be factored and balanced, even when there is delay and laches on the part of the authorities – Studied silence of the respondent, was with an ulterior motive as he wanted to take benefit of the slipup though he had suffered dismissal – Thus, the judgment passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of dismissal is upheld – Service law. Clause 22(ix)(a), 2(e) – Object of definition clauses – Held: Is to avoid frequent repetition in describing the subject matter to which the word or expression is intended to apply – This is useful when the same word or expression is used more than once in the same enactment – Definition can be with the intent to attract a meaning already established by law; expand the meaning by adding a meaning; or narrow the meaning by exclusion – Repugnancy will arise when the definition meaning does not agree with the subject in the context – On facts, repugnancy not indicated and does not arise in the context of Clause 22(ix)(a) by mere absence of article ‘the’ in Clause 22(ix)(a) before the word ‘bank’. Inquiry: Domestic inquiry – Choice of representation – Right of – Held: Right to be represented by a counsel or agent of one’s choice is not an absolute right but can be controlled or regulated by law, rules, or regulations – However, if the charge is of severe and complex nature, then the request to be represented through a counsel or agent should be considered – Said proposition flows from the entitlement of fair hearing, applicable in judicial as well as quasi-judicial decisions. ‘Acquiescence’ and ‘delay and laches’ – Distinction between – Held: Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right – Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person – However, both limitation and laches destroy the remedy but not the right – Laches like acquiescence is based upon equitable considerations, but laches unlike acquiescence imports even simple passivity – On facts, inactive acquiescence on the part of the Bank Manager can beinferred till the filing of the appeal, and not for the period post filing of the appeal – Nevertheless, this acquiescence being in the nature of estoppel bars the Bank Manager from claiming violation of the right of fair representation.  Administrative law: Statutory authority – Non-performance of duty – Defence of delay and laches – Held: When the statutory authority does not perform its duty within a reasonable time, the same cannot be justified by taking the plea that the person deprived of his rights has not approached the appropriate forum for relief – Statutory authority cannot take the defence of laches and delay.