JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwal, J. - The petitioner Mahabir Singh Gaur was appointed as a Lascar on the 29th April, 1964 at the Air Force Station, Bareilly. He was made quasi permanent on the said post with effect from 1st July 1967. On the 16th August 1971 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The charges were to the effect that the petitioner while functioning as Lascar in Air Force Station, Bareilly during the period 1968-71 improperly claimed children education allowance in the name of Anil Kumar, Punam Kumari and Nilain Kumari as his children on the plea that they were studying in the Municipal Board Junior Basic School, Shahabad Gate, Bareilly whereas the said persons were not on the rolls of the said school. He was further charged to the effect that during the above period the petitioner forged certificate purported to have been issued by the school mentioned above and that he fraudulently drew Rs. 600 as children education allowance by referring false claims. The petitioner was also suspended by an order of suspension dated 13th September 1971. 2. An inquiry was conducted into the charges against the petitioner and ultimately by an order dated 5th August 1972 the Commanding Officer, No. 15 Wing, Air Force, dismissed the petitioner with effect from 5th August 1971 and further directed a penal deduction of Rs. 630 against him. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order. By order dated 9th November, 1972 the appellate authority modified the penalty awarded by the Commanding Officer. The dismissal from service was, however, maintained. The order of the appellate authority was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 15th November 1972. The petitioner has challenged the orders of dismissal dated 5th August 1972 and the order dated 15th November 1972 in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The only point which has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under rule 14, sub-clause (8) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 the petitioner was entitled to take the assistance of any other Government servant to person his case. 3. The only point which has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under rule 14, sub-clause (8) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 the petitioner was entitled to take the assistance of any other Government servant to person his case. He was denied this assistance thereby denying him an opportunity of defending the charge levelled against him and as such the whole proceedings beginning from the inquiry till the final order of dismissal are liable to be quashed. 4. Rule 14, sub-clause (8) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, is as follows: "The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a legal practitioner or the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits." 5. In order to consider the submission made by the learned counsel it is necessary to examine certain material facts in this regard. On 16th August 1971 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner as stated above. The petitioner submitted his reply on 26th August 1971 and in the ultimate paragraph of his reply he requested that appropriate notice for holding the inquiry may be given to him so that he may manage to engage some departmental counsel to contest his case as envisaged in the rules of inquiry. On 16th September 1971 a Board of Inquiry was constituted consisting of Sqn. Ldr. J.K. Dhawan and Fit Lt. S.K. Mahendaroo. On the 17th September 1971 the petitioner wrote to the Commanding Officer, Air Force Station, Bareilly, that three persons, namely, S.K. Sandhir of New Delhi, G.P. Saxena of Agra and A.S. Rawat of New Delhi, may be called to assist the petitioner to present the case on his behalf before the Board of Inquiry. S.K. Mahendaroo. On the 17th September 1971 the petitioner wrote to the Commanding Officer, Air Force Station, Bareilly, that three persons, namely, S.K. Sandhir of New Delhi, G.P. Saxena of Agra and A.S. Rawat of New Delhi, may be called to assist the petitioner to present the case on his behalf before the Board of Inquiry. On the receipt of the request of the petitioner by letter dated 17th September 1971 the Board of Inquiry intimated to the petitioner on the 18th September 1971 that in accordance with the rules he was entitled to call on person for his assistance and as such the petitioner was asked to give the name of one person and he was further asked that a name of an alternative person may also be given in case the name chosen by the petitioner is not relieved by the controlling ministry. The petitioner by his letter dated 23rd September 1971 gave his choice in favour of S.K. Sandhir, Office Superintendent, Civilian Pay Section, Accounts Office, Air Force, New Delhi. The petitioner did not give an alternative name as was requested by the letter issued by the Board of Inquiry dated 18th September 1971. 6. On 3rd November 1971 the Board of Inquiry intimated to the petitioner that inspite of best efforts having been taken to secure the attendance of S.K. Sandhir no response had been received from S.K. Sandhir and he was asked to secure the assistance of either S. K. Sandhir on his own or choose any body else in his place. The petitioner was further informed that the inquiry proceedings have unnecessarily got delayed on account of the non-availability of the representative of his choice and he was asked to co-operate in finalising the proceedings at the earliest. By letter dated 29th November 1971 the petitioner informed the Board of Inquiry that he has withdrawn the name of S.K. Sandhir and that he is approaching certain other persons employed in the offices of Central Government to give their willingness for defending his ease before the Board of Inquiry, it is alleged by the petitioner that he wrote two letters on 3rd December 1971 and 10th Dec. 1971 naming one G.P. Sexena from Agra to assist him. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that these letters have been ante dated. 1971 naming one G.P. Sexena from Agra to assist him. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that these letters have been ante dated. The letters dated 3rd December 1971 and 10th December 1971 were received by the Board of Inquiry only on 20th December 1971 and that on the 14th December 1971 the petitioner was invited by the Senior Administrative Officer and the petitioner had informed him that he had made up his mind by that time as to whom he should approach to present his case. In any case, immediately on the receipt of the letters naming G.P. Saxena Agra for the assistance of the petitioner the Board of Inquiry on 21st December 1971 intimated the petitioner that his letters were received only on 20th December 1971 and that the petitioner was deliberately delaying the proceedings of the Board of Inquiry for reasons best known to him. On 31st December 1971 a telegram was sent to Agra requesting the presence of G.P. Saxena for the assistance of the petitioner. The Board of Inquiry was informed that G.P. Saxena cannot be spared due to exigencies of service for time being it may be noted here that in December 1971 an emergent situation had arisen in the country and the Bangla Desh war was in progress and as such the fact that G.P. Saxena was not available was a wholly justifiable act on the part of the authorities concerned. 7. In any case in order to afford further opportunity to the petitioner the Board of Inquiry on 4-4-1972 wrote to the petitioner that he is being given another opportunity to represent his case by any Government servant readily available at Bareilly within 10 days from the date of the receipt of the said communication. This opportunity was given to him as G.P. Saxena, whose assistance was sought by him was not available due to service exigencies. This opportunity was given to him as G.P. Saxena, whose assistance was sought by him was not available due to service exigencies. In reply to the letter dated 4th April 1972 the petitioner instead of available of the said opportunity again re-iterated his request by letter dated 12-4-1972 that G.P. Saxena may be called before the proceedings of the Board of Inquiry and he further took the plea that it is not binding on the Government servant to choose the name of any local employee for his defence as asked by the Board of Inquiry and that in such circumstances the proceedings of the Board should be kept in abeyance until exigencies of service are over and Sri Saxena is made available. 8. It may be stated that petitioner took no steps whatsoever to take the assistance of any person from Bareilly and only raised technical pleas in reply. Ultimately the Board of Inquiry was compelled to proceed ex parte. The Board of Inquiry submitted its report of 14th June 1972. Again after a period of more than two months from 4th April 1972 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. In reply to the show cause notice dated 15th July 1972 the petitioner only challenged the report of the inquiry on the ground that he was denied the assistance of a Government servant to present his case but the charges found proved against him were not denied by him on merits and no explanation whatsoever was submitted in reply to the show cause notice. Ultimately the punishing authority accepted the report of the Board of Inquiry and dismissed the petitioner from service. 9. It would be observed from the facts stated above that Board of Inquiry was constituted on 16th September 1971 and the show cause notice was issued on 14th June 1972. It took practically nine months to complete the inquiry but the petitioner only raised technical objections and did not avail of the opportunity afforded to him to take the assistance of any Government servant to present his case on his behalf. 10. The nature of the charges were not such which could not be defended by the petitioner. The replies and letters which the petitioner submitted himself. 10. The nature of the charges were not such which could not be defended by the petitioner. The replies and letters which the petitioner submitted himself. The ground of challenge to the proceedings of inquiry are purely of a technical character as we find that no prejudice has been caused to him due to the fact that he could not avail of the assistance of any other Government-servant. It may further be stated here that under clause (8) rule 14 it was open to the authority concerned to permit the petitioner the services of a counsel but even this request was not made by him at any stage and the petitioner went on insisting the fact that some body from outside Bareilly be called for his assistance. The only aim of the petitioner, it appears, was to delay the inquiry. 11. Clause (8) of rule 14 has been made for the benefit of the charged Government servant in case he wants to take the assistance of another Government servant in order to enable himself to defend properly. It is not mandatory for the authorities to provide the assistance to an employee of a person of his choice alone. In case the choice made by a Government servant is such that is not possible or practicable for the Government to comply with the said request of Government servant then it cannot be held that clause (8) of rule 14 has been violated. This clause is directory and not mandatory. Under this clause if a Government servant cannot take the assistance of any other Government servant then right has been given to him to apply before disciplinary authority for providing assistance of a legal practitioner. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is open to the disciplinary authority to provide such assistance to the charged servant. The extent of the right of a charged employee to get the assistance of another Government servant or that of a Lawyer under clause (8) depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case we are satisfied that the petitioner did not avail of the assistance of any other Government servant afforded to him and as such there was no denial or violation of clause (8) of rule 14 as alleged by him. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case we are satisfied that the petitioner did not avail of the assistance of any other Government servant afforded to him and as such there was no denial or violation of clause (8) of rule 14 as alleged by him. In the circumstances the proceedings of the Board of Inquiry are not vitiated and the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner has no substance. 13. The petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 586 of 1961 decided on 23rd January 1964 by Hon'ble V. Bhargav and G.C. Mathur, JJ. The facts of that case are wholly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In that case the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of assistance by another Government servant at the time of the inquiry but such person was not intimated prior to the date of inquiry that he had to assist the charged Government servant thereby denying him a proper opportunity. The principles laid down in that case do not apply in the instant case. 14. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.