Advocate PRABU S

I am seeking guidance on engaging counsel for a service law matter in Chennai, and on the kind of expertise the case requires. I was compulsorily retired from the services of a private scheduled bank in March 2022, where I had served as an Assistant Manager since 2013. The charges concerned a personal transaction of Rs. 40,000 in my own salary account and the maintenance of accounts and loans with other banks without written permission. The transaction had already been examined and closed by the bank's own offsite transaction monitoring system at branch and regional office levels in September and October 2020, and my other accounts and borrowings had been fully disclosed in the bank's half-yearly staff declaration forms, verified by my branch head. The matter was nevertheless reopened by the Vigilance Department four months later and a chargesheet followed. My case is that the proceedings were mala fide. I was married to the daughter of a senior officer of the same bank; the marriage ended in divorce in January 2019, and the disciplinary action followed. The officers who issued the chargesheet, supervised me at my posting, and deposed as the sole management witness were his batchmates or subordinates. I have pleaded selective and disproportionate punishment, and I am seeking production of comparative disciplinary records showing that officers charged with identical conduct received only warning letters. I appealed under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. The appeal was dismissed for default in September 2025 despite my presence being recorded, and was restored in February 2026. In June 2026 the Appellate Authority held that no preliminary issue on the fairness of the domestic enquiry need be framed and posted the matter for my evidence. The bank's counsel has stated in open court that a writ petition will be filed against that order. I have filed a petition for production of documents under Section 41(2-A)(ii), and the bank has been directed to file its reply. I have appeared personally at every hearing over four years and maintained the complete record. My proof affidavit is drafted and my documents are in order. There have been changes of counsel during the proceedings, and I am currently appearing in person while I engage new counsel. My questions are these. First, what combination of expertise should I look for? The matter is primarily a service and labour appeal, but two features point elsewhere. I allege that several of my answers were falsified in the record of the domestic enquiry — including an answer recorded as the opposite of what I said, and answers recorded with the qualifying portions omitted. The evidence stage will also turn on cross-examining the bank's officers. Would counsel with criminal trial and prosecution experience be an advantage for that cross-examination, alongside labour law expertise — and would such experience also be relevant if I pursue a separate criminal complaint on the falsified record? Second, is it practicable to engage one counsel for the labour appeal and another for the writ proceedings before the High Court, given they are different forums? Third, is there anything I should be doing now to protect the proceedings before the Appellate Authority against an interim stay from the High Court? I am based in Chennai at present and would be grateful for guidance. Thanks.