V. MATHIVANAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION)/DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2011 in W.P(MD)No.9450 of 2011, rejecting the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings of the respondent dated 16.05.2011, wherein the respondent rejected the plea of the writ petitioner to engage an advocate in the course of the enquiry proceedings. The writ petitioner also seeks quashing of the proceedings dated 27.06.2011 rejecting the writ petitioner's request again to engage an advocate. In the light of the prayer thus made, the writ petitioner seeks a Mandamus to direct the respondent to permit the writ petitioner to avail the services of M.Rajarathinam, advocate, as defence Assistant in respect of the domestic enquiry conducted for the charge memo dated 14.02.2011.

(2.) A perusal of the affidavit filed before this Court shows that except for contending that the said M.Rajarathinam has the right to represent as per the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, nothing had been stated as to how the discretion had been wrongly exercised by the respondent in rejecting the plea of the writ petitioner.

(3.) FEW facts before going into the case, have to be noted hereunder: