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 .