IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1773 of 2009 Between: M. Pandu Ranga Rao S/o. Laxmi Narayana Rao O/o. National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The National Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. by its Assistant Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Hyderabad Regional Office: HRO., 7th Floor, Mogul's Court Building, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Manager & Inquiry Officer The National Insurance Company Ltd. Hyderabad Regional Office: 7th Floor, Mogul's Court Building, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI M.M.M.SRINIVASA RAO FOR SRI KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.SRINIVAS The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside memorandum dated 12-02-2008 issued by respondent No.1 and consequential notices dated 30-12-2008 and 21-01-2009 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri M.M.M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is an employee of respondent No.1-Company and is faced with a departmental enquiry, in which charges were framed vide memo dated 12-02-2008. Respondent No.2 is appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. The petitioner has felt aggrieved by proceedings dated 21-01-2009, whereby respondent No.2 permitted him to engage a defence assistant, who should be an employee of the National Insurance Company alone and not any other person from outside the Company. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said condition placed by respondent No.2 affects the interests of the petitioner to engage a person of his choice from outside respondent No.1-Company. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is, inter alia, stated that the present writ petition is totally premature because, the petitioner has not named the defence assistant so far. Though this Court has got some reservation about the condition that the petitioner shall engage a person only from respondent No.1- Company as his defence assistance, the petitioner has neither indicated before respondent No.2 nor in the affidavit filed in this writ petition that he already has somebody in his mind, who is not an employee of respondent No.1, to be engaged as a defence assistant. Unless the petitioner raises a plea that the condition imposed by respondent No.2 denied him the opportunity of engaging a particular person of his choice, who is not an employee of respondent No.1- Company, he cannot be said to have felt aggrieved by the condition stipulated by respondent No.2, on a hypothesis that, in the event of his choosing somebody from outside respondent No.1-Company, his interests would be affected. This writ petition cannot, therefore, be entertained on an apprehension of the petitioner that he may choose somebody from outside respondent No.1-Company in future. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 25th March, 2009 vrn