1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2104 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1332 OF 2011 S.Durai .. Applicant/ petitioner V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2103 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1332 OF 2011 S.Durai .. Applicant/ petitioner V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.Mishra i/by M/s.V.Mishra & Co.for the Applicant/petitioner. Mr.Harihar Bhave i/by Bhave & Co.for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 18th November, 2011. P.C.: Civil Application No.2104 of 2011: 1. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 08.08.2011. The parties have been relegated before the appointing authority. The said authority is expected to reconsider the matter from the stage of hearing because an opportunity of hearing is 2 required to be given to the petitioner atleast on the quantum of the sentence, and then to pass further orders/ directions in accordance with law. 2. As per the observations made in the said order, the petitioner appeared in the office of the appointing authority on 29.08.2011 alongwith his Advocate. The petitioner was informed that as per the Rules, the officer as defined in clause (m) of Rule 3 of the Rules alone can espouse the cause of the petitioner in the said proceedings, and not the practicing Advocate. The matter was then fixed before the appointing authority on 21.10.2011 at 10.30 am. However the petitioner did not appear. 3. It is noticed that inspite of the communication sent by the office of the appointing authority to the petitioner to appear on 21.10.2011, the petitioner did not appear in the proceedings. Instead, the petitioner rushed to this Court by way of present application. 4. The question is; whether the petitioner has right to be represented by an Advocate of his choice before the Appointing Authority. The petitioner is relying on the document at Exhibit “H” at Page 42 of the Civil Application No.2104 of 2011 in support of his 3 submission. However, the issue is governed by the statutory rules framed in exercise of powers under the State Bank of India Act, 1955, named as the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules 1992. Rule 68(2) (vii) plainly stipulates that the officer such as the petitioner before us, may take assistance of an officer as defined in clause (m) of Rule 3, but shall not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose of disciplinary action and proceedings in that behalf. The validity of the said rule is not put in issue at all. 5. In any case, in a disposed of writ petition, it is not possible for us to expand the scope of this grievance, having become functus officio. 6. We place on record the statement made by the counsel that the petitioner is willing to appear before the appointing authority on 19.12.2011 at 11.00 am, on which date the appointing authority may proceed with the hearing of the inquiry or assign some other date as may be convenient to it. 7. Indeed, it will be open to the petitioner to appear himself in person or appoint any officer as defined in clause (m) of Rule 3 of the Rules, but shall not engage a legal practitioner for the said 4 purpose. 8. We also place on record the apprehension expressed by the counsel for the petitioner that because of serious heath problem of the petitioner, he may not be able to appear before the appointing authority on the scheduled date i.e.19.12.2011. For, presently the petitioner is hospitalized since 14.11.2011 due to paralytic attack to his left side body and he is in I.C.U. It will be open to the petitioner to make representation to the appointing authority for granting suitable date of hearing, in writing, to be supported with medical evidence about his inability to attend the proceedings on the abovenoted date well in advance, which request will be considered by the appointing authority in accordance with law. 9. Civil Application No.2104 of 2001 is disposed of accordingly. Civil Application No.2103 of 2011: Counsel for the applicant submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this application. Hence Civil Application No.2103 of 2011 is allowed to be withdrawn. Ordered accordingly. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)