Judgment 1. By consent, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself. 2. Heard, Mr. Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. P.D. Audikesavalu, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition for a certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the show cause notice dated 14.6.2014 issued by the respondent on the ground that the same has been passed without giving an opportunity to him and also for a direction to the respondent to conduct the domestic enquiry afresh in respect of the Charge Memo dated 13.4.2013, after furnishing due opportunity to him. 4. The petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 11.7.2014 before this Court stating that he wanted to cross examine four management witnesses, through whom the documents have been marked and also to examine three witness on his side. 5. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not pressing the prayer with regard to the cross examination of four witnesses of the Management side but as he has been denied an opportunity to examine his witness, he may be permitted to examine himself and other two witnesses on his side and also to produce certain documents as narrated in the affidavit filed in Court. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the enquiry was concluded, the respondents are ready to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to examine his witnesses. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that out of 58 documents, which have been sought for by the petitioner, 46 documents are available with the respondent and, therefore, the petitioner will be allowed to peruse the said documents in the presence of the officials. 7. Considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also considering the fact that the writ petition has been filed only on the ground that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to examine the witnesses, without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to examine three witnesses only, namely, the delinquent, (the petitioner herein) V. Neelambal and R.G. Deivasigamani, (borrowers). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to examine three witnesses only, namely, the delinquent, (the petitioner herein) V. Neelambal and R.G. Deivasigamani, (borrowers). The petitioner is directed to appear before the enquiry officer concerned on 21.7.2014 and to co-operate with the enquiry. The enquiry officer concerned is directed to proceed with the enquiry on day today basis and complete the entire proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from 21.7.2014. It is made clear that the petitioner will be permitted to peruse the documents available with the respondent as per the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondent. To this extent this consent order is passed. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.