JUDGMENT : 1. Delay condoned. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Leave granted. 3. This appeal is preferred against an order of the High Court permitting the respondent to engage an advocate to defend him in the disciplinary enquiry. Rule 40 of Bombay Manual of Departmental Inquiries which is the only relevant rule reads thus: 40. "An employee against whom an enquiry is being held shall not ordinarily be entitled to be represented by any representative or pleader, except when specially permitted by the Municipal Commissioner or Deputy Municipal Commissioner. The Enquiry Officer shall in the case of labour and inferior staff, and may in his discretion in the case of any other employee, allow the employee to have the assistance of another employee who should be from the same department as far as possible." This rule is in two parts. The first part says that no employee shall be ordinarily entitled to be represented by any representative or by a pleader unless he is specially permitted by the Municipal Commissioner or Deputy Municipal Commissioner. The second part says that in certain situations mentioned therein the Enquiry Officer can permit the employee to have the assistance of any employee who should be from the same Department as far as possible. In this case the respondent applied for permission to engage an advocate before the Enquiry officer. It is stated that the Enquiry Officer forwarded the said application to the Municipal Commissioner. The Municipal Commissioner declined the permission. Thereupon the respondent approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. After noting the appellant's case that he may have to examine his superiors and that assistance of a co-worker would not be sufficient in the circumstances, the High Court merely observed that it is a fit case for permitting an advocate and allowed the writ petition. 4. So far as the legal position is concerned, it is well established. The Municipal Commissioner had a discretion in the matter of permitting the assistance of an advocate. Unless it is found that the said discretion has been exercised in a perverse manner or that the exercise of discretion is vitiated by a mis-direction in law, no interference is called for under Article 226 with the discretion of the officer. The Municipal Commissioner had a discretion in the matter of permitting the assistance of an advocate. Unless it is found that the said discretion has been exercised in a perverse manner or that the exercise of discretion is vitiated by a mis-direction in law, no interference is called for under Article 226 with the discretion of the officer. In this case the order of the High Court does not show as to why the order of the Municipal Commissioner is bad or as to why the discretion exercised by him is vitiated. In the circumstances the order of the High Court must be held to be un-sustainable in law. 5. So far as the case herein is concerned, it is brought to our notice that the enquiry is already over and that the respondent did have the assistance of an advocate therein. Since the enquiry is already over, no particular order need be passed so far as the present enquiry is concerned. The above directions are more in the nature of general directions. 6. With the above observations, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside.