HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19474 of 2009 Date: 16.11.2009 Between: P.Manikyala Rao, Secunderabad. … Petitioner And The Syndicate Bank, Rep., by its Assistant General Manager, Hyderabad. … Respondent HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 19474 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 26.05.2009 for alleged commission of gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interests of the respondent-Bank. The petitioner made a representation on 27.07.2009 requesting the Enquiry Officer to permit him to engage the services of a lawyer to meet the ends of justice stating that though he is a member of the Employees Union of the respondent-Bank, no employee of the Bank has come forward to represent his case. The 1st respondent by letter dated 29.07.2009 informed the petitioner that the charge under enquiry does not warrant a lawyer to defend the petitioner and that it is open to the petitioner to engage a defence representative in accordance with the provisions of the bipartite settlement dated 10.04.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that it is always open to the petitioner to avail the opportunity of clause 12(ii) of the Settlement dated 10.04.2002 by engaging a representative from other trade unions or employees functioning in the respondent-Bank. It is also stated that in case the petitioner makes an application, the respondent-Bank will provide all opportunities as per the Regulations for defence assistance as per clause 12(i)(x) and 12(ii) of the Settlement dated 10.04.2002. As per clause 12 of the Settlement dated 10.04.2002, the delinquent is entitled to engage a lawyer only with the permission of the Bank. The request of the petitioner to engage a lawyer having been considered and rejected by the 1st respondent on application of mind to the facts and circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold the impugned action of the respondent is arbitrary or illegal. However, the petitioner is certainly entitled to get his case defended in terms of the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation suggesting the names of the employees from any other Union for defence assistance as per clause 12(i)(x) and 12(ii) of the Settlement dated 10.04.2002. If any such application is made within one week from today, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law permitting the petitioner to get the witnesses of the management cross examined and participate in further enquiry. Till such orders are passed, the enquiry against the petitioner shall not be proceeded further. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 16.11.2009 KLP