JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - This petition is directed against the order by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension and other orders passed during the course of enquiry proceedings. 2. Since a charge sheet has already been issued to the petitioner and the domestic enquiry is pending we are not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to assail the enquiry proceedings on the ground that he has not been allowed to take the assistance of a Government servant to present the case on his behalf before the enquiry officer as contemplated by sub-rule (8) of Rule-'M of the Central Civil Services. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Sub-rules (8)(a) and (b), which alone are material for this petition, provide as under : "8(a) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government Servant to present the case on this 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 ; (b) The Government servant may also take the assistance of a retired Government servant to present the case on his behalf subject to such conditions as may be specified by the President from time to time by general or special order in this behalf." 4. The provisions extracted above create a right in favour of the delinquent employee to take the assistance of another Government servant, serving or retired, to present his case before the enquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings with the rider that engagement of a retired Government servant would be subject to such conditions as may be specified by the President by general or special order. Engagement of a legal practitioner, under the above Rule, is not altogether excluded but is permissible in only two circumstances : (i) Where the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority himself is a legal practitioner, or (ii) Where the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, permits the engagement of a legal practitioner. 5. Engagement of a legal practitioner, under the above Rule, is not altogether excluded but is permissible in only two circumstances : (i) Where the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority himself is a legal practitioner, or (ii) Where the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, permits the engagement of a legal practitioner. 5. The phrase "having regard to the circumstances of the case" employed in clause (a) of sub-rule (8) of Rule 14 is indicative of the discretion vested in the disciplinary authority to allow the engagement or assistance of a legal practitioner to an employee facing domestic enquiry. Apart from being phrase of wide import, it positively rules out the possibility of the exercise of discretion arbitrarily. 6. The question whether or not an employee has a right to take the assistance of any other servant or a legal practitioner to represent his case before the enquiry officer in a domestic enquiry has been considered by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. In N. Kalindi and others v. M/s. Tata Locomotive and Engineering Company Ltd. Jamshedpur, AIR 1960 SC 914 ; The Dunlop Rubber Company v. Their Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 1392 and All India Reserve Bank Employees Association v. Reserve Bank of India and another, AIR 1966 SC 305 , the Supreme Court emphatically pointed out that an employee has no right to be represented by a legal practitioner or any other employee before the enquiry officer, unless the employer so permits or there is some provision made in the standing orders. In Krishna Chandra Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 1589 , the Supreme Court observed that in the absence of Rules, the assistance of an advocate can be refused. The same view was reiterated in H.C. Sarin v. Union of India and others, AIR 1976 SC 1686 . However, if there is a provision made in the Rule that a delinquent employee can take the assistance of a Government servant, such employee would have the right to demand the assistance of a Government servant in order to present his case before the Enquiry Officer. See The Dunlop Rubber Company v. Their Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 1392 (supra). 7. However, if there is a provision made in the Rule that a delinquent employee can take the assistance of a Government servant, such employee would have the right to demand the assistance of a Government servant in order to present his case before the Enquiry Officer. See The Dunlop Rubber Company v. Their Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 1392 (supra). 7. In C. L. Subramaniam v. The Collector of Customs Cochin, AIR 1972 SC 2178 , the Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Rule 15(5) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which provides that a Government servant may present his case with the assistance of any other Government servant, laid down that the provisions are mandatory and a delinquent servant has to be provided the assistance of a Government servant to present his case before the enquiry officer or else the enquiry would be vitiated. The circumstances in which the assistance of a legal practitioner could be made available to a Government servant were also considered by the Supreme Court in that case and it was laid down that if the Presenting Officer nominated by the disciplinary authority was himself a legal practitioner or the case against the employee was handled by a trained prosecutor, the delinquent officer should also be provided the assistance of a legal practitioner. 8. The decision of the Supremo Court in Subramaniam's case (supra) was considered by the Supreme Court itself in two subsequent decisions in the Board of Trustees v. Dilip Kumar Raghvendra Nath Nand Kami and others, AIR 1983 SC 109 and Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, AIR 1983 SC 454 in one of which it was observed by the Supreme Court as under : "In our view we have reached a 6tage in our onward march to fair-play in action that where in an enquiry before a domestic tribunal the delinquent officer is pitted against a legally trained mind, if he seeks permission to appear through a legal practitioner the refusal to grant this request to defend himself and the essential principles of natural justice would be violated." In view of the aforesaid decisions of the higher ... the country the law on the question is abundantly clear and there should be no doubt in the mind of any one, not even in the mind of the authorities holding domestic enquiry, that where there is a service rule which enables the delinquent officer to avail of the assistance of another Government servant or a legal practitioner, such an opportunity has to be provided to that employee. The refusal to be represented by a legal practitioner or a Government servant serving or retired, would, in such a case, be violative of the Rule and result in serious prejudice to the delinquent employee. Where the right to be represented by a legal practitioner or a co-employee or a retired employee is provided and regulated by statutory rules, it would be futile to press in aid the observance of the principles of natural justice, for the simple reason that these principles apply where the matter is not regulated either by the Service Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution or any other statutory Rules. 9. In the instant case it is not disputed that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act on 15-12-1965. The Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules apply to the employees of the Sangathan which has adopted the Rules and has made them applicable to all the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalayas. The Benefit envisaged by the Rules that an employee can avail of the services of another employee for presenting his case before the enquiry officer would be applicable to the employee of the Kendriya Vidyalaya against whole disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. Chapter VIII of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalaya, inter alia, provides as under : "All the employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Divisional Offices and the Headquarters of the Sangathan are subject to the disciplinary control of the Sangathan. It has been decided that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 1965, as amended from time to time will apply, mutatis mutandis to all members of the staff of the Sangathan, except then otherwise decided, and that the appointing, disciplinary and appellate authority for the various posts will be as in the Appendix XIX.`"In the above Rules, for the words `Government Servant' where-ever they occur, the words `Member of Staff of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan' may be substituted.'' 10. In view of adoption subject to the above change, namely, that in place of "Government servant" the words "Member of Staff of Kendriya Vidyalaya Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan" shall be read, the petitioner can take the assistance of any other employee of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, serving or retired' to present his case before the enquiry officer. 11. In the instant case, as would be evident from the order, dated 29-3-1989 contained in Annexure 10, the petitioner has been permitted to bring another Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan employee as his defence assistant. The right to be represented by another employee has, therefore, not been denied to the petitioner. 12. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the petitioner demanded a list of Kendriya Vidyalaya Employees who were trained to function as defence assistants but his request was turned down by an order which is being reproduced below : "The C.O. requested to provide him a list of Kendriya Vidyalaya employees who are trained to function as defence assistant and also approved by Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. I.O. replied that there is no such list available with the Assistant Commissioner, Lucknow region. 13. It is, therefore, contended that the petitioner cannot avail of the services of a Kendriya Vidyalaya employee and, therefore, he must be allowed to bring an employee of any other establishment or any other Government servant to represent him before the enquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings. 14. It may be pointed out that by the order, quoted above it was only indicated that a list of Kendriya Vidyalaya employees, who could act as defence assistants, was not maintained but it would not mean that none of the Kendriya Vidyalaya employees (retired or serving) was available to act as defence assistant. As indicated in the order contained in Annexure 10, the choice has been left with the petitioner to bring any other Kendriya Vidyalaya employee to assist him in the disciplinary proceedings. 15. For reasons stated above we are clearly of the opinion that upto the present stage of the disciplinary proceedings, the right of the petitioner ' founded on Rule 14(8) has not been violated. 16. 15. For reasons stated above we are clearly of the opinion that upto the present stage of the disciplinary proceedings, the right of the petitioner ' founded on Rule 14(8) has not been violated. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage stated although he has challenged the disciplinary proceedings on a number of other grounds including the ground relating to the change of enquiry officer, he does not want to canvass those grounds at this stage-so that those grounds may be available to him for challenging the disciplinary proceedings on these grounds at the appropriate stage. We, therefore, refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion on other questions and dismiss the petition summarily at the admission stage.