THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5149 of 2010 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. In this writ petition, the petitioner, against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated for the alleged commission of misconduct, seeks a mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent in proceeding with the departmental enquiry pursuant to the orders, dated 15.02.2010 and 19.02.2010, without giving him permission to engage a defence representative, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the terms of Bipartite Settlement, dated 10.04.2002. It is the case of the petitioner that after initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge sheet, dated 26.05.2009 against him, at the first instance, he submitted a representation, dated 27.07.2009 to the first respondent seeking permission to engage a lawyer to represent him in the disciplinary proceedings. His representation was rejected on 31.08.2009. Thereafter, he filed Writ Petition No.19474 of 2009, in which, this Court by order, dated 16.11.2009, while approving the action of the first respondent in rejecting the request of the petitioner to engage a lawyer, granted liberty to the petitioner to submit appropriate representation to the first respondent suggesting the names of the employees of any other Union for availing the defence assistance in terms of the Bipartite Settlement, dated 10.04.2002. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when he approached the second respondent, he did not receive any response from it to engage the defence counsel from the Federation or Union in terms of Clause 12(a)(ii) of the Bipartite Settlement, dated 10.04.2002 and the first respondent is proceeding with the enquiry. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner by filing repeated representations is trying to delay the enquiry proceedings and that he requested the second respondent, to which he is a member, to nominate a representative from the Federation or All India Organization, to which the second respondent is affiliated. It is further stated that on the representation of the petitioner, the second respondent responded vide letter, dated 05.03.2010 by giving the names of three persons enabling the petitioner to choose one among them as his defence representative. It is also stated that in spite of the same, he has not chosen to do so and repeatedly making the representations to the first respondent. In respect of the bank employees, there is a Bipartite Settlement, which prescribes a detailed procedure for conduct of disciplinary action. Under Clause 12(i)(x) of the Bipartite Settlement, an employee can be represented by a representative of a registered trade union of bank employees of which he is a member on the date first notified for the commencement of the enquiry. Alternatively, there is also a provision in which a representative of the State Federation can be nominated in the event of request by the union. Though it is the allegation of the petitioner that the second respondent union is insisting him to admit the charges, in the absence of any material in proof thereof, the same cannot be accepted. Moreover, on the representation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent union addressed a letter, dated 05.03.2010 to the petitioner by giving the names of three members to select one among them to be a defence representative in exercise of power under Clause 12 (a)(i)(x) of the Bipartite Settlement. This shows that the second respondent union has already nominated persons to be chosen one among them by the petitioner. Hence, the pleas of the petitioner that there is no response from the second respondent union and he was not allowed to choose any defence representative to defend him in the disciplinary proceedings have no basis. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the action of the first respondent in proceeding with the enquiry against the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th MARCH, 2010. kvni