Judgment Binod Kumar Roy and S.K.Chattopadhyaya JJ. 1. The petitioner prays to command the respondents to allow him to engage a legal practitioner of his choice after quashing a communication contained in letter dated 7/10-8-1992 of the Senior Personnel Officer of Respondent No. 1 (Respondent No. 4) informing him that as per the rules engaging of a legal practitioner is not permissible and that he may take assistance of any other employee for the same and for striking down Clause 29.6 of the conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. The respondents in their counter-affidavit assert, inter alia, that the denial was for many reasons apart from the rule aforesaid. 3. Whether the petitioner, who is a Deputy personnel Manager, well trained and conversant with the procedure and rules involved in the departmental proceedings in which an Inspector of Police, C. B. I. is the representing authority can be allowed to engage a lawyer to defend him in a departmental proceeding is the only question involved in this writ application, 4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the Rule submitted that while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner the respondents have violated principles of natural justice. He places reliance on several decisions including J. K. Agarwal V/s. Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Limited and Ors. reported in -- and an unreported order of this Court in CWJC No. 2012 of 1989 (R) Rabindra Singh Grewal V/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited passed on 28-3-1990 by Satyeshwar Roy and B. P. Singh, JJ. 5. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents however, submits that Rules 29.6 aforementioned cannot said to be violative of principles of natural justice and/or ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India more so when the petitioner has not replied to the categorical assertion of the respondents in their counter-affidavit that the petitioner is well trained and conversant with the procedure and rules involved in the departmental proceedings. Rule 29.6 aforementioned runs as follows: The employee may take the assistance of an other employee but may not en gage a legal paractitioner for the purpose. 6. Rule 29.6 aforementioned runs as follows: The employee may take the assistance of an other employee but may not en gage a legal paractitioner for the purpose. 6. The question raised by the petitioner has been recently re-examined wish reference to several decisions by a three Judges Division Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. V/s. Ram Naresh Tripathi reported in -- and it was held as follows: It is, therefore, clear from the above case law that the right to be represented through counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or regulated by statute, rules, regulations or standing orders. A delinquent has no right to be represented through counsel or agent unless the law specifically confers such a right. The requirement of the rule of natural justice insofar as the delinquents right of hearing is concerned, cannot and does not extend to a right to be represented through counsel or agent. 7. In view of the latest pronouncement aforementioned, which is binding on us, we do not find any merit in the submissions of Mr. Sinha. 8. This writ application is accordingly, dismissed, but in the peculiar facts and circumstances without cost.