Supreme Court of India
HARINARAYAN SHRIVASTAV versus UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK AND ANR.
- Decided
- 31 March 1997
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] 3 S.C.R. 465 · 1997 INSC 340
- Also cited as
- (1997) 4 SCC 384
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
· Delay condoned.
p. 465, margin E
This Special Leave Petition arises from· the judgment of the single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court; Jabalptir Bench, made on 28.10.1996 in W.P. No. 4472/96.
p. 465, margin F
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 chargesheet within two days, 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. 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 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 advocate is not violative of principles of natural justice.
pp. 465–466, margin F
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.
p. 466, margin C
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 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.
p. 466, margin D
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A. Petition dismissed.
p. 466, margin F