V. KANAGARAJ, J.

The writ petitioner, in connection with the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him by the disciplinary authority, at different points of time, seeking different reliefs has filed all the above four writ petitions along with yet another in 1086 of 1996, of which, the other W.P. No. 1086 of 1995 filed against the order dated January 2, 1990 suspending the writ petitioner since dismissed as infructuous, as per the orders of this Court dated September 9, 1996, all the remaining four writ petitions, which are all in some form or other connected to the disciplinary proceeding instituted against him, have been altogether taken up for a joint hearing as a result of which this common order is passed.

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, W.P. Nos. 11803 of 1992, 11804 of 1992, 1087 of 1993 and 15947 of 1993 are hereinafter referred to as the first, second, third and fourth writ petitions respectively.

So far as the first writ petition in W.P. No. 11803 of 1992 is concerned, the petitioner has filed the same praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent therein, the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, connected to RO/STAFF/DAD/92-93/500, dated July 1, 1992 and quash the same, further directing the first respondent to appoint an Officer in the Bank as the Presenting Officer in the place of the fourth respondent viz. Thiru S. Natarajan, Inspector, Central Bureau of Investigation, A.C.B., Madras-6, on averments that by proceedings of the first respondent dated May 14, 1992, the third respondent was appointed Enquiry Officer and by another proceeding on the same day, one R. Sundara Gopalan, Scale-I Officer as Presenting Officer, but subsequently by proceeding dated July 1, 1992 in the place of R. Sundara Gopalan, the fourth respondent, S. Natarajan, Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation was appointed as the Presenting Officer and therefore canvassing the correctness or otherwise of the appointment of the fourth respondent as Presenting Officer the petitioner has filed the first writ petition above.So far as the second writ petition in W.P. No. 11804 of 1992 is concerned, it has been filed by the petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent, the Enquiry Officer, in E.O. No. 92, dated July 13, 1992 and quash the same and consequently direct him to permit the petitioner to avail the services of a lawyer on grounds that by petition dated July 3, 1992, he requested the Enquiry Officer to permit him to avail the services of a lawyer, for which by communication dated July 13, 1992, the Enquiry Officer intimated him that his request for availing the services of a lawyer was declined; that the refusal order of the Enquiry Officer is not in accordance with law and contrary to the Bipartite settlement, which has statutory force governing the cases and therefore the impugned order refusing to permit him to avail the services of a lawyer becomes liable to be set aside, that it is the usual practice of the Central Bank of India to have the disciplinary enquiry conducted by their own staff including the Presenting Officer and an outsider would not be appointed; that only in this case, an unknown procedure is adopted, which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and hence would pray for the relief extracted (supra).

The petitioner would file the third writ petition in W.P. No. 1087 of 1993 also, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the second respondent in Ref. 91-92/327, dated September 19, 1991 and quash the same and ultimately direct the respondents therein to pay him the full pay and allowances from January 27, 1991 as subsistence allowance on ground that the petitioner was suspended by order dated January 28, 1990 by the first respondent therein; that at his request, the second respondent declined for payment of full pay