IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 101 OF 2007 SHRI. P. PUNDALIK KAMATH ... Petitioner Versus MADGAUM URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 2 ORS. ... Respondents Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. Lawande, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- U. D. SALVI, J. Date:- 17th December, 2009 P.c. Heard. Perused records and the letter dated 9.12.2009 of the Inquiry officer, respondent no. 2 herein. 2. Records reveal that by order dated 22.3.2007 Inquiry Officer was required to dispose off the inquiry within a period of 3 months and the said Order came to be passed by consent of the parties. Since then time to complete inquiry was got extended from time to time and ultimately 6 months time to compete the inquiry with a clear understanding that no further extension would be granted came to be passed vide order dated 26.6.2009. The Inquiry Officer was expected to ensure that the employee would get sufficient opportunity to put up has case before Inquiry Officer. 3. Now the evidence of the management is over and the employee is expected to lead his evidence in defence. It is seen from the application 16.12.2009 moved by the employee the petitioner herein before the Inquiry Officer that his defence will include his personal examination in chief(and of course be cross examination)) and there would be two or three witnesses in his defence. Two weeks time has been sought for preparing his defence statement and proceed with is evidence. 4. Considering these facts and circumstances it would not be unreasonable to grant further extension. Time to complete inquiry is extended further 6 months. Petitioner shall endeavor to complete his defence within given time. U. D. SALVI, J. vn