Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Bank Of India & Ors. vs Syed Javed Akhtar Judgement Given By: ... on 7 February, 2014
M.C.C.No.778/2005
State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Syed Javed Akhtar
07/02/2014
Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the applicants.
None appears for the respondent, even though served
and represented by counsel.
Seeking review/ recall of an order dated 10.8.2004 passed by a bench of this Court in W.P.(s)No.5141/2004, whereby in a pending departmental enquiry, respondent/ employee was permitted to take assistance of a lawyer, this application has been filed for review.
It is pointed out by Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the applicants that the petition was disposed of without notice to the Bank concerned and based on certain provisions of the rules, without hearing the Bank, an order has been passed for permitting engagement of the lawyer for defending the employee concerned. It is indicated in the review application that the question of engagement of the lawyer for defending the employee is subject to various conditions as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments and merely on asking of the employee for engagement of the lawyer, the said prayer cannot be allowed. Contending that the order is passed without hearing the Bank concerned, which may cause prejudice to the Bank, review of the order is sought for.
Even though, respondent has tried to justify the order passed but the factual aspect of the matter, as is born out from the record, goes to show that even though an order has been passed, the matter has been proceeded with and the action taken is said to be pending before the competent M.C.C.No.778/2005 State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Syed Javed Akhtar authority. It is stated by Shri Ashish Shroti that this happened sometimes in the year 2006 but now the current position of the appeal is not available with him.
Be it as it may be, the fact remains that the order in question has been passed without hearing the Bank concerned and as the departmental inquiry has been concluded, we see no reason to interfere into the matter now, except for giving liberty to the parties to take up the matter before the competent authority with regard to the question for engagement of the lawyer and the competent authority without taking note of the directions issued on 10.8.2004 in W.P.(s)No.5141/2004, shall consider the question afresh in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, this application for review stands disposed of.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) (Anil Sharma)
Judge Judge
nd