B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent- corporation in "not conducting the enquiry against the 5th respondent which will reveal why the petitioner has resigned under duress, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of natural justice. . . " The petitioner prays for a consequential direction directing the respondent- corporation to re-instate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. A very peculiar prayer indeed.

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief at all, it may be necessary to notice the relevant facts and the background leading to filing of this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is sworn and signed by one satish Shannkararao Sonwalker s/o late s. J. Sonwalkar, a retired employee of the corporation in his capacity as the Power of attorney holder of the petitioner. The petitioner himself appeared in person before the Court along with his power of attorney agent. This Court at the time of hearing of the matter expressed its opinion that it will be better, if the petitioner is represented by a Counsel and offered to provide legal aid to the petitioner by engaging an Advocate to argue the case on his behalf. The petitioner as well as his power of attorney agent did not agree for the suggestion of the Court. The petitioner on the other hand insisted that he should be represented by his power of attorney agent.

( 4 ) MORE about the question as to whether a party has any right to be represented by his power of attorney agent and as to whether the Court is bound to hear the said power of attorney and permit such an agent to make oral submissions acting practically as an Advocate on behalf of the party, later.

( 5 ) THE petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Stores Officer in the respondent Corporation, tendered his resignation on 23-3-1994 and on the same day his resignation was accepted and he was relieved from his duties. Six months after the acceptance of the resignation, the petitioner made a representation that his resignation was taken by compulsion and he should be permitted to take the advantage of voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the Corporation. The managing Committee of the respondent- corporation having considered the request of the petitioner rejected the same by an order dated 27-9-1994. The petitioner questioned the same in W. P. No. 19137 of 1994. This Court by an order dated 10-3-1995 dismissed the writ petition by observing that it is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the highest authority of the corporation seeking necessary relief and if such a representation is made, the authority may dispose of sympathetically within two months from the date of making such representation. The petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 418 of 1995 and this Court by an order dated 26-4-1995 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition itself, leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the authorities requesting them to permit him to avail the voluntary retirement scheme and if such a representation is made, it shall be considered sympathetically and disposed of within two months from the date of representation.

( 6 ) THE respondent-Corporation having considered such representation from the petitioner, in the light of the observations made by this Court, rejected the same by an order dated 19-7-1995. The petitioner again filed W. P. No. 22795 of 1995 challenging the proceedings dated 19-7-1995 rejecting the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement benefit. This Court by its order dated 9-7-1997 dismissed the writ petition by observing that there is no material to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that the resignation was taken under duress. In fact the Court noticed that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the petitioner and in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document