Point of law: The law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that there is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognise such a right and provide for such representation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Naveen Pahwa for Thakkar And Pahwa Advocates for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. K.M. Parikh for the respondent.

1. By these petition under Article of the 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of the Committee of the Executives of Willful Defaulters (Identification Committee) and the Review Committee of the respondent-Bank of India identifying the account of the petitioner as willful defaulter and subsequent reporting of the name of the petitioner to Reserve Bank of India/CIBIL as willful defaulter.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was informed about the decision of declaring the petitioner as willful defaulter vide communication dated 21st February, 2019.

3. The facts leading to the declaration of the petitioner as willful defaulter are as under:

3.1. The respondent-bank granted various credit facilities to the borrower company i.e. Vimal Oil and Foods Limited (for short 'the borrower company') vide sanctioned letter dated 18th November, 2009 and 11th January, 2012. The petitioner stood as guarantor for the said company by executing a Guarantee Deed dated 23rd January, 2015 in favour of the respondent - bank to secure payment of credit facility sanctioned in favour of the borrower company.

3.2. It appears that the bank of Baroda filed insolvency petition being Company Petition No.135/7/NCLT/AHM/2017 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.B.Code') before the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the NCLT') against the borrower company. The NCLT by order dated 19th December, 2017 admitted the said petition and ordered moratorium under Section 14(1)(a) of the I.B. Code prohibiting the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or any proceedings against the borrower company. A Resolution Professional and Management was appointed and the Management of the borrower company was suspended.

3.3. The RBI has issued a Circular dated 1st July, 2015 followed by Master Circular upon willful defaulter dated 1st July, 2018 prescribing the procedure for identification of the willful defaulter by the bank with a purpose to put in place a system to disseminate credit information pertaining to willful defaulters for cautioning banks and financial institutions so as to ensure that further bank finance is not made available to them.

3.4. Accordingly, the Identification Committee headed by the Executive Director of the respondent Bank of India identified the borrower company to be declared as willful defaulter. As per the said Circular, the show cause notice is required to be issued by the committee to the concerned borrower and the promoter, full time Director and call for their submissions. According to the petitioner, no notice was issued by the Identification Committee but the respondent bank issued the show cause notice dated 27th June, 2018 to the borrower company, its Directors, promoters and shareholders, as well as the guarantors. By the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to pay outstanding amount within 15 days, failing which it was informed that appropriate steps for declaring the borrower company, as well as, the petitioner as willful defaulter would be initiated. The reply was submitted to the said notice by the petitioner on 10th July, 2018 contending that the petitioner is not liable to make payment as demanded by the respondent and that the petitioner cannot be declared as willful defaulter unless the bank comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has sufficient means to make payment of dues in case of failure of borrower company.

3.5. It appears that thereafter, the Identification Committee did not reply to the petitioner nor sent any notification which classifies the petitioner as willful defaulter though demanded by the petitioner in the reply. It appears that meanwhile, the proceedings before the NCLT continued