Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.7.2001 passed in CWJC No. 7619 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ application filed by him challenging the order dated 15.2.2001, contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, whereby his prayer to take assistance of Chakardhar Prasad Singh, (Exemployee) General Secretary of the Bihar State Electric Supply Workers Union in a departmental proceeding has been rejected. 2. The factual matrix necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant is a permanent employee of the respondent-Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) and is working as a Super Selection Grade Accounts Assistant at Kosi Area Electricity Board, Saharsa. On the basis of certain allegations, a decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding by Office Order No. 155 dated 11,1.1999 and accordingly the Board decided to initiate a proceeding in accordance with the Certified Standing Order. The memo of charges were served and Inquiry Officer was appointed and the departmental proceedings commenced against him. During pendency of the proceedings on 5.2.2001, the appellant filed an application before the Inquiry Officer requesting that Sri Chakradhar Prasad Singh, General Secretary, of the Bihar State Electric Supply Workers Union may be allowed to appear as defence assistant on his behalf. The said prayer was rejected by order dated 15.2.2001 by the Inquiry Officer on the ground that in terms of the decision of the Board, a retired employee of the Board even if a member of the Workmen Union cannot be allowed to appear as defence assistant in the departmental proceeding on behalf of the workmen. The said order has been challenged by the appellant on the ground that the Board is an Industrial Establishment and service conditions of its employees are governed by the Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 of the Board. Clause 30 (4th stage) of the certified Standing Orders provides that the employee shall be allowed an opportunity if so required by him to take assistance from a member of the executive of the union of which that workman concerned happens to be a member during the course of the enquiry when the evidence is led and in accordance with the said provision, he is entitled to take assistance of Sri Charkradhar Pd. Singh and the consequent Standing Order dated 1.6.1999 providing inter alia that no retired officer/ workmen or outsider (excluding advocates) will be allowed to function as defence assistant in departmental proceedings is unjustified, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as such impugned order be set aside and he be allowed to take assistance of ex-employee Sri Chakardhar Prasad Singh who is also a member of the executive of the Union of which the appellant is a member. 3. The stand of the respondent-Board on the other hand is that it was found that defence assistants who happen to be employees of the Board abstain them from their work place and attend departmental proceedings without obtaining permission of their controlling authority to be absent from the place of their duties. It was also found that some of the defence assistants obstruct or hinder the proceedings resulting into delay in disposal of the proceedings and causing hardship to the proceedee. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the Board by Standing Order dated 1.6.1999 took the decision that no workmen of the Board will be allowed to depose as defence witness or prosecution witness and act as defence assistant without obtaining the written permission from their controlling authority. In case the Inquiry Officer is satisfied that allowing a person to act as defence assistant may hinder/obstruct or hamper the progress of departmental proceeding, he may refuse such facility by passing a speaking and reasoned order and no retired officer/workmen of the Board of outsider (excluding advocates) will henceforth be allowed to function as defence assistant in departmental proceeding. Thus, these decisions were taken to prevent delay in disposal of the proceedings as a result of obstruction or hindrance put by the exemployees being the member of the Union and as such the said decisions were not only just and proper but necessary in the public interest and also for the benefits of proceedee. 4. To appreciate the point, it is necessary to refer to two Standing Orders relevant for the disposal of the present appeal. Clause 30 of the Certified Standing Order deals with disciplinary action against the workman other than casual and five stages are provided under the said clause that is to be followed while conducting the inquiry against the delinquent employee. To appreciate the point, it is necessary to refer to two Standing Orders relevant for the disposal of the present appeal. Clause 30 of the Certified Standing Order deals with disciplinary action against the workman other than casual and five stages are provided under the said clause that is to be followed while conducting the inquiry against the delinquent employee. 4th Stage provides that the competent authority will hold inquiry and provide all opportunities to the employee. It further provides that the employee shall be allowed an opportunity if so required by him to take assistance from a member of the executive of the union of which that workman concerned happens to be a member during the course of the inquiry when the evidence is led.The Board with a view to expedite the departmental proceeding and to prevent obstruction and hindrance in continuance of the proceeding by subsequent Standing Order No. 816/EB dated 1.6.1999 took three decisions, namely, (a) no workmen of the Board will be allowed to depose as defence witness or prosecution witness and act as defence assistants, without obtaining the written permission from their controlling authority; (b) the Inquiry Officer may refuse the facility of allowing a person to act as defence assistant if he may hinder/obstruct or hamper the progress of departmental proceeding, and (c) no retired officer/workmen of the Board or outsider (excluding advocates) will henceforth be allowed to function as defence assistant in the departmental proceeding. The said Standing Order dated 1.6.1999 runs as follows. "It has been observed that defence assistants who happen to be employees of the Board abstain them from their work place and attend departmental proceedings without obtaining permission of their controlling authority to be absent from the place of their duties. It has also been observed that some of the defence assistants obstructs or hinder the proceedings. This leads to delay in disposal of the proceedings and causes hardship to the proceedee. The departmental proceedings are held during office hours, therefore, the Boards servant concerned appearing as defence assistants or witnesses in any departmental proceeding must obtain written permission of their controlling authorities to be absent from the place of their duties. The controlling authority can, if necessary, in public interest refuse to grant such permission to the employees of the Board. The departmental proceedings are held during office hours, therefore, the Boards servant concerned appearing as defence assistants or witnesses in any departmental proceeding must obtain written permission of their controlling authorities to be absent from the place of their duties. The controlling authority can, if necessary, in public interest refuse to grant such permission to the employees of the Board. The Supreme Court has held that such refusal of permission shall not be construed as denying to the delinquent a reasonable opportunity to defence because he remains free to select some other fellow employee of his choice (H.C. Sareen V/s. Union of India A.I R. 1976 S.C. 1686) particularly, when the field of choice available is quite wide. Therefore, henceforth, it has been decided that: (a) No workmen of the Board will be allowed to depose as defence witness or prosecution witness and act as defence assistants, without obtaining the written permission from their controlling authority for leaving their headquarters/ work place. (b) If enquiring Officer is satisfied that allowing a person to act as defence assistant may hinder/obstruct or hamper the progress of departmental proceeding, the Enquiring Officer may refuse such facility by passing a speaking and reasoned order. (c) No retired officer/workmen of the Board or outsider (excluding advocates will henceforth be allowed to function as defence assistant in departmental proceedings. This order comes into force with immediate effect." 5 According to the earlier Standing Order the employee can take assistance from a member of the executive of the Union of which that workman concerned happens to be a member during the course of the enquiry is taken. However, according to the subsequent Standing Order, the Inquiry Officer has been given right to reject the prayer of the delinquent to engage a particular assistant if it is found that there will be obstruction/hamper or hindrance in the departmental proceeding and no retired officer/workmen of the Board even if he be a member of the executive of the Union will be allowed to act as defence assistant in departmental proceedings. 6. Law on this point is well settled. 6. Law on this point is well settled. There is no absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and unless the rules regulating and Standing Orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognise right of representation by somebody else, the workman cannot claim representation in a domestic enquiry by somebody else as a matter of right. Simitar question has been considered recently by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank V/s. Indian Overseas Bank Officers Association, reported in JT 2001 (8) SC 306, where the regulation provided that the officer/employee can take the assistance of any other officer or employee to defend himself in the disciplinary proceeding. The said regulation was amended to the effect that the delinquent employee shall not take the assistance of any other employee who has two pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance. The said provision was struck down by the Karnataka High Court on the ground that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court held that the said regulations are valid for the reason that the same were made for expeditious culmination of the disciplinary proceedings by avoiding unnecessary delays on the part of a defence officer holding too many engagements on his hand finding difficult to co-ordinate his appearance in various proceedings. It will also prevent the monopoly being created by some employees for working as defence assistant and the services of the proposed defence officers are equally available able in proper measure to the institutions which employ them in greater public interest. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment is as follows : "We have carefully considered the submissions made as above. The issue ought to have been considered on the basis of the nature and character or the extent of rights, if any, of an officer- employee to have, in a domestic-disciplinary enquiry, the assistance of someone else to the represent him for his defence in contesting the charges of misconduct. The issue ought to have been considered on the basis of the nature and character or the extent of rights, if any, of an officer- employee to have, in a domestic-disciplinary enquiry, the assistance of someone else to the represent him for his defence in contesting the charges of misconduct. This aspect has been the subject matter of consideration by this Court on several occasions and it has been categorically held that the law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that there is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and Standing Orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognize such a right and provide for such representation. [N. Kalindi & others V/s. M/s Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co. Ltd. Jamshedpur [ AIR 1960 SC 914 ]; Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. V/s. Their Workmen [ AIR 1965 SC 1392 ); Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. V/s. Ram Naresh Tripathi [JT 1992 Supp. SC 539= (1993) 2 SCC 115 ] and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V/s. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & others [JT 1998 (8) SC 487 = (1999) 1 SCC 626 ]. Irrespective of the desirability or otherwise, of giving the employees an opportunity facing charges of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding to ensure that his defence does not get debilitated due to inexperience or personal embarrasments, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that too as constituting an element of principle of natural justice to assert that a denial thereof would vitiate the enquiry itself." 7. In this case, the Standing Order provides for engagement of defence assistance from a member of the executive of the union of which the employee belongs at the relevant time and as such he is entitled to the same. In this case, the Standing Order provides for engagement of defence assistance from a member of the executive of the union of which the employee belongs at the relevant time and as such he is entitled to the same. The Board found that the hindrance is caused by defence assistant especially those who are retired employees of the Board but continuing as a member of the executive of the union, which is evident from Annexure-6 to the writ application, and taking into consideration the obstruction and hamper caused by the defence assistant and with a view to provide expeditious disposal of the proceeding, the Board issued Standing Order as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, providing the Enquiry Officer the right to refuse the prayer of delinquent employee to take assistance if the same puts hindrance in the proceeding and the ex-workman of the Board even if he be the member of the executive of the Union, shall not be allowed to work as defence assistance. By making the aforesaid provision the right of the employee to take defence assistant is not taken away and as such he cannot claim to have deprived of his right of representation. Employer having noticed that retired employees while appearing as defence assistant cause delay in proceeding, made the aforesaid provision. The said provision cannot be said to be either arbitrary or discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of the India, on the other hand, the same is just and in public interest and that is also for the benefit of the employees of the Board so that the departmental proceeding comes to an end at the earliest. 8. Thus, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. M.L.Visa, J. 9 I agree.