IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 458 OF 2006 SHRI P. PUNDALIK KAMATH, MARGAO ....Petitioner GOA. Versus MADGAUM URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK ....Respondents LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND 2 ORS., Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kalshavkar, Advocate for R-1. Coram:- J. N. PATEL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 11th December, 2006 P.C. The petitioner who is employed in the respondent-Bank has sought for quashing and setting aside of the suspension order and to permit him to function as General Manager and Chief Executive of Respondent no.1-Bank. 2. Leave granted to amend prayer clause (ii). Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. We have gone through the petition and the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent. We find that the respondent has taken a decision to initiate departmental inquiry for which showcause notice have been already issued against the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 makes a statement that the respondent no.1 has already appointed an Inquiry Officer and who will conclude the inquiry within a period of three months if the petitioner extends to offer co-operation. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner requires certain documents to be furnished to him in order to participate in the inquiry. Needless to say, the petitioner may apply to the Inquiry Officer for all such requirements to which he is entitled in order to defend himself. All questions raised in the petition are kept open. As such, the petition is dismissed. J. N. PATEL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. arp/*