Judgment : 1. The petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings initiated by the first respondent. The second respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner initially appointed Thiru.Gunasekaran, office bearer of State Bank India Ambedkar Trade Union, as his defence representative. Since the representative pleaded his inability to appear on account of personal reasons, the petitioner engaged the service of Thiru.Raviselvam. Thereafter, the petitioner appointed Thiru.M.V.Thangasamy, as his defence representative. However the said appointment was not approved by the first respondent. The order declining to accept the appointment of Thiru.M.V.Thangasamy, as his defence representative, is challenged in this Writ Petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the State Bank of India Ambedkar Trade Union has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 10.04.2002. As per the said agreement, it is open to the employee to take the assistance of a member of his registered trade union. 3. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit wherein it was contended that the petitioner participated in the enquiry after appointing a defence representative. According to the first respondent, in the midst of enquiry proceedings, the petitioner wanted to replace his representative. It was further contended that the settlement dated 10.04.2002 does not permit to replace a workman who has already been appointed as defence representative. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the earlier order dated 16.07.2007 in W.P.(MD)No.7999 of 2005 submitted that this Cort has already considered the very same agreement and the stand taken by the worker that he is entitled to avail the assistance of a member of the trade union as his defence representative. 5. The learned counsel for the bank submitted that the Indian Banks Association issued a clarification indicating that a reference to registered trade union of bank employees in Clause 19.12 of the First Bipartite Settlement would refer only to a 'trade union of workmen'. According to the learned counsel, in view of the clarification given by the Indian Banks Association, it is not open to the petitioner to engage the service of an office bearer of a registered trade union. 6. The petitioner initially engaged his defence representative. Thereafter, another representative was engaged to represent him before the second respondent. The petitioner having found that the very same representative was defending other employees, who were also charge-sheeted along with him, appointed Thiru.M.V.Thangasamy as his defence representative. 7. 6. The petitioner initially engaged his defence representative. Thereafter, another representative was engaged to represent him before the second respondent. The petitioner having found that the very same representative was defending other employees, who were also charge-sheeted along with him, appointed Thiru.M.V.Thangasamy as his defence representative. 7. The bank has no case that Thiru.M.V.Thangasamy, is not an office bearer of the registered trade union of which the petitioner is a member. Even the counter affidavit filed by the bank proceeds on the basis that the Bipartite Settlement governs the field. 8. The issue raised by the petitioner is no more res integra in view of the order dated 16.07.2007 passed in W.P.(MD) No.7999 of 2005. Similar contention was taken by the bank in the said writ petition which was rejected by the learned Judge. 9. The objection of the bank appears to be on account of the change of defence representative during the midst of proceedings. The bank would be justified in the said contention in case the petitioner wanted de novo enquiry. The petitioner wanted only continuation of the proceedings. It was only for the said purpose a new defence representative was engaged. The memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002 provides for such engagement. The fact that the memorandum of settlement does not contain any provision regarding change of representative, cannot be a reason to reject the new engagement. Therefore, I am of the view that the first respondent was not justified in passing the impugned order. 10. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders permitting the petitioner to engage the service of M.V.Thangasamy as his defence representative. The defence representative should be directed to continue the proceedings. The petitioner should be permitted to cross examine the witnesses already examined by the second respondent in chief. 11. The Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.