1 ra69.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 69 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 313 OF 2010 The Central Bank of India and others. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Ravikiran Budha Ahire ..RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.A. Kulkarni, advocate for petitioners Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for respondent ..... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 18th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Only reason for recalling and/or reviewing the order is that the enquiry against the respondent (original petitioner) was already over on 14.01.2010. Hence, on the date of passing impugned order i.e. on 20.01.2010, the Bank could not have acceded to legal assistance. 2. After hearing Advocates Mr. Kulkarni for applicant-bank and Mr. Brahme for non-applicant-employee, we have find that at least till 20th January, 2010, no punishment order was passed. Hence, it can not be said that it was not open for Bank to agree to legal assistance by permitting the employee to engage an Advocate in departmental enquiry. Therefore, the alleged completion of enquiry on 14.01.2010 is not the relevant circumstance either for recall or 2 ra69.10 review. The application is therefore rejected. No costs. (S.S. SHINDE,J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) gas/ra69.10