Harinarayan Srivastav v. United Commercial Bank And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

This special leave petition arose from a judgment of the Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, dated 28-10-1996 in WP No. 4472 of 1996. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet alleging that he sanctioned loans for non-existing fictitious persons and caused disbursement of demand drafts within two days (10-12-1990 and 11-12-1990) in favour of M/s Sudarshan Trading Co., Bhopal, for Rs 2,80,000, amounting (according to the respondents) to misconduct.

A domestic enquiry was initiated and was being proceeded with. The petitioner applied for permission to engage an advocate for his defence; the request was refused. In the writ petition before the High Court, he challenged the refusal on the ground that a criminal case on the same offence was pending and that denial of legal assistance violated principles of natural justice. The High Court upheld the refusal, and the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition. The delay in filing was condoned.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether refusal to permit the petitioner to engage an advocate in the domestic enquiry violated the principles of natural justice, particularly where a criminal trial for the same alleged offence was pending.
2. Whether, in light of Rule/Para 19.12 of the Bipartite Settlement and the nature of the allegations, the bank was required to permit representation by an advocate in the domestic enquiry.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• A charge-sheet had been filed in the criminal court for the same offence, and the criminal trial was pending; therefore, assistance of an advocate was necessary in the domestic enquiry.
• Since the bank’s presenting officer was asserted to be a law graduate, denial of an advocate’s assistance was stated to be violative of natural justice.
• Conducting an enquiry with the petitioner defending himself (or through an officer under para 19.12 of the Bipartite Settlement) would prejudicially affect the petitioner's case in the pending criminal trial, making denial of an advocate contrary to natural justice.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that, under Rule/Para 19.12 of the Bipartite Settlement, permitting a delinquent employee to defend himself with the assistance of an advocate is an option that may be given by the bank, rather than an automatic entitlement in every case. The Court then examined the charge-sheet in the departmental enquiry and assessed the nature of the allegations.

On that review, the Court found the allegations to be “very simple” and “not complicated.” In such circumstances, the Court concluded that refusal to allow engagement of an advocate would not amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s contention that pendency of the criminal trial, by itself, necessitated permitting an advocate in the domestic enquiry, stating that it found “no force” in that contention.

The reasoning aligned with the High Court’s view that, given the simplicity of facts, the petitioner could defend himself (or through another employee) without mandatory legal representation, and that denial of an advocate did not, on these facts, breach natural justice.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The special leave petition was dismissed (with delay condoned).

The direct effect is that the refusal to permit the petitioner to engage an advocate in the ongoing domestic enquiry stands, and the enquiry may proceed without requiring the bank to allow legal representation. The opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond the parties’ dispute and does not articulate any new precedent.