1. Domestic enquiry for misconduct involving fictitious loan sanctions — Request for advocate assistance refused — Challenge based on pending criminal proceedings and principles of natural justice. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 587
1997(3) Supreme 739
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Harinarayan Srivastav -Petitioner
versus
United Commercial Bank & Anr. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8329 of 1997
CC 3329 of 1997
Decided on 31-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : B.S. Banthia, Advocate.
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that denying the assistance of an advocate in a domestic enquiry does not violate the principles of natural justice if the allegations are simple and not complicated, even if a parallel criminal trial is pending for the same offense.
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Charge sheet filed against petitioner in criminal Court-Domestic enquiry initiated-Petitioner s application for permission to engage advocate refused-Writ-As per Rule 19.12 of the bi-partite settlement, permission to defend himself with assistance of advocate was one of option to be given by Bank-Allegations in domestic enquiry were simple and not complicated-Failure to permit petitioner to engage an advocate was not violative of principles of natural justice. (Para 5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Denial of advocate assistance in domestic enquiry violates natural justice when criminal proceedings for the same offence are pending and the presenting officer is a law graduate. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The allegations in the enquiry were simple and uncomplicated, and the presenting officer was not a legally trained person. (Para 3 , 5 )
4. Denial of advocate assistance in a domestic enquiry does not violate principles of natural justice if the charges are simple and uncomplicated. (Para 3 , 5 )
5. Special leave petition dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. Does the denial of an advocate's assistance in a domestic enquiry necessarily violate the principles of natural justice?
No. If the allegations are simple and not complicated, the failure to permit the engagement of an advocate is not considered a violation of the principles of natural justice. (Para 3 , 5 )
7. Does the pendency of a criminal trial for the same offence entitle an employee to legal representation in a domestic enquiry?
Not necessarily. The court found that the pendency of a criminal trial does not automatically make the denial of an advocate's assistance in a domestic enquiry a violation of natural justice, especially when charges are simple. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. How does the nature of the charges affect the right to legal representation in a domestic enquiry?
Where the facts and allegations are simple and uncomplicated, the court holds that the employee can defend themselves or be defended by another employee without the mandatory assistance of an advocate. (Para 3 , 5 )
ORDER
Delay condoned.
2. 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.
3. 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 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 ald 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 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.
4. 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 offiaer, 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.
5. As per the Rule 19.12 of the bi-partite Settlement, the 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.
6. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
********
