ORDER An employer and employee related controversy which is subject-matter of a pending domestic enquiry is sought to be brought before this Court by filing a writ petition for which purpose it is pleaded that the respondent-Co-operative Bank is nevertheless state within the meaning of Article 12 as majority of shareholding is by the State. 2. While it is no doubt true, that for certain limited purposes, an authority or an organisation clothed with the powers and functions of the State can nevertheless be treated as State within the meaning of Article 12 for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution of India, that does not mean that every employer-employee relationship is required to be examined in writ jurisdiction by this Court, a jurisdiction that is discretionary and meant to correct the arbitrary, illegal and whimsical actions on the part of the State and its offices. 3. Petitioner is an employee of the respondent-Bank and appears, had functioned as a manager in a branch of the Bank and was found to have mismanaged the funds of the Bank for which purpose, a domestic enquiry has been instituted. Petitioner is not keen on participating in such domestic enquiry and is more keen on stalling enquiry and has been before this Court time and again, even before the enquiry could take of. The reason attributed is that the petitioner wants to avail of the services of a legal practitioner to represent him in the domestic enquiry for which purpose, had made a request which came to be rejected once earlier against which the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 27163 of 2005, which petition though was dismissed nevertheless it was observed that the petitioner should give another application which may be considered by the respondent-Bank. Petitioner having given one such application and that also having been rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 12-1-2006 copy at Annexure-H, petitioner is yet again before this Court in this round of writ-litigation. 4. Petitioner having given one such application and that also having been rejected in terms of the impugned order dated 12-1-2006 copy at Annexure-H, petitioner is yet again before this Court in this round of writ-litigation. 4. Submission of Sri Harish, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that inspite of this Court issuing direction to consider the application of the petitioner for extending assistance of a legal practitioner to defend himself in the legal enquiry, respondents have, without due consideration rejected the same; that the legal position in this case is quite settled; that this portion is clear from the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of: (1) C.L. Subramaniam v Collector of Customs, Cochin; (2) Sunil Kumar Banerjee v State of West Bengal and Others; (3) J.K. Aggarwal v Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited and Others; (4) State Rajasthan v S.K. Dutt Sharma on which reliance had been placed before the authority. Nevertheless impugned order has been passed that the situation is very similar as in that case and present case, therefore impugned order should be quashed and the respondent directed to extend legal assistance to the petitioner. 5. In the first instance, benefit of a rule which covers service conditions of a Central Government employee, framed under Article 309, cannot be equated to be the same when certain service conditions made to employees are adopted for limited purpose by the Private Co-operative Bank. Moreover, the authority being of the view that the enquiry being about the manner in which the petitioner had released certain loan facilities instalments without ensuring the concomitant safety provisions and after verifying the progress of the work for which finance was being given by the bank in instalments and enquiry of such nature does not necessarily justify engagement of a legal practitioner which is a plausible and reasonable view, denial of the request of the petitioner, per se cannot be characterised as either or violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 6. Sri Harish, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Presenting Officer one G.V. Aayachith is a Senior Manager of the Bank and therefore situation justified extending legal assistance to the petitioner to defend his case effectively. 7. 6. Sri Harish, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Presenting Officer one G.V. Aayachith is a Senior Manager of the Bank and therefore situation justified extending legal assistance to the petitioner to defend his case effectively. 7. If the respondents have rejected the services of the legal practitioner, particularly as the Presenting Officer was not a person necessarily trained in legal matters, no exception can be taken to such an order (See Sunil Kumar Banerjee and ,J.K. Aggarwal's cases). 8. Having regard to the nature of the enquiry which the authority is holding, if the authority takes the view that it is not necessary to extend facility of a legal practitioner, that by itself will not give further rights to question such order before this Court. 9. Moreover, the Bank having adopted the service rules as are applicable to the State Government employees and the said rules providing for a statutory appeal, assuming that the order to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority goes against the petitioner, the provision of appeal provides sufficient safeguards for persons like petitioner and it is not necessary for this Court to keep interfering in all such domestic enquiries even before the domestic enquiry takes off. I do not find such matters warrant interference in the exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction of this Court. c