AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Yesterday, Mr.P.Vyasathirtha, learned advocate for the appellant sought leave to retire from the case. He was permitted to retire.
Today, the appellant appears-in-person and makes his submissions.
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant by the employer, that is, the Syndicate Bank. In the disciplinary proceeding, he sought leave to engage a practicing advocate as his defense counsel. The Disciplinary Authority declined such permission recording the provisions of the Regulation as under: "The Officer Employee make take the assistance of any other Officer Employee, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner or the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits."
The Hon''ble Single Judge found, as the findings of fact, that no special circumstances has been made out by the appellant for engaging an advocate and that neither the Inquiring Authority nor the Presenting Officer is a legal practitioner.
We do not find any merit in the writ appeal. The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal is, also, dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, accordingly, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.