Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
HARINARAYAN SRIVASTAV
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK & ANR..
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
This special leave petition arises from the judgment of
the single judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur
Bench, made on 28.10.1996 in W.P.. No.4472/96.
A charge-sheet has been given to the petitioner on the
allegation that he sanctioned loan for non-existing
fictitious persons and got disbursement of demand drafts
mentioned in the charge-sheet within two days, i.e. December
10, 1990 and December 11,1990 in favour of M/s. Sudarshan
Trading Co. of Bhopal for Rs.2,80,000/-. on the basis
thereof, the respondents imputed that the petitioner
committed the misconduct. An enquiry had been initiated and
is now being proceeded against him he filed an application
for permission to engage the services of an advocate. The
permission was refused. In the writ petition,. the
petitioner contended that the chargesheet was filed against
him in the criminal court for the self-same offence. in view
of the fact that the matter is pending in the criminal
Court, an assistance of the advocate is necessary. Since
presenting officer of the Bank is a law graduate, denial of
the assistance of the advocate is violative of principles of
natural justice. The High Court has held that since the
facts are not complicated and the presenting officer of the
Bank is not a legally trained person, assistance of an
advocate is not mandatory in the domestic enquiry. On these
simple facts, he could himself or through any other employee
defend the case without the assistance of an advocate. On
that basis, the High Court has held that denial of
assistance of an advocate is not violative of principles of
natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since
the chargesheet has already been filed and criminal trial is
pending, any enquiry conducted against the petitioner
himself or any of the officer, as notified in para 19.12 of
the bi-partite settlement, would prejudicially affect the
petitioner’s case and therefore, the denial of the
assistance of an advocate is violative of the principles of
natural justice. we find no force in the contention.
As per the Rule 19.12 of the bi-partite settlement, the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
permission to defend himself with the assistance of the
advocate is one of the option to be given by the Bank. We
have perused the chargesheet in the enquiry now sought to be
proceeded against the petitioner . The allegations are very
simple and they are not complicated. Under these
circumstances, we do not think that the failure to permit
the petitioner to engage an advocate is violative of the
principles of the natural justice.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed .