HARINARA YAN SHRIVASTA V
A
v.
UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK AND ANR.
MARCH 31, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
B
Service Law-Domestic Enquiry-Engagement of services of an advo-
cate-Permissibility of-Ba11k-Employee-Misconduct of Sanctioning fie- .
titious /oa11 for non existing person-Departmental e11quiry-Cltarge sheet also
filed i11 crimi11al court for self same offence--Pennission to engage advocate C
for domestic e11quiry---Rejection:-Appeal agai11st--Held the allegatio11s are
very simple and they are 11ot co111plicated-U11der these circumstances, the
failure to pennit the petiti011er to engage an advocate is not violative of the
principles of the natural justice.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) D
No. 8329 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.96 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in W.P.No. 4472 of 1996.
B.S. Banthia for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
· Delay condoned.
E
This Special Leave Petition arises from· the judgment of the single F
Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court; Jabalptir 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 disbur-
sement of demand drafts mentioned in the chargesheet within two days, G
i.e. December 10, 1990 and December 11, 1990 in favour of Mis. Sudarshan
Tradi11g 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. H
465
466
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997] 3 S.C.R.
A 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 an advocate
B 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 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
C advocate is not violative of principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the char-
gesheet 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
D 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 p~rmission to
defend himself with the assistance of the advocate is one of the option to
E, 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.
F
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
T.N.A.
Petition dismissed.
Lex