Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is working as a Special Grade Driver, in the respondents / Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu. He was placed with an enquiry and further, under suspension on 08.08.2012 and a charge memo was framed under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, (hereinafter will be referred to as "the Rules"). The charges, as set out in Annexure-I, are grave in nature. 2. The petitioner sent a representation, on 09.11.2012, to the first respondent stating that for participating in the Departmental Enquiry, he wanted to have the assistance of a Legal Practitioner. The Member Secretary informed the petitioner that since already Enquiry Officer has been appointed and if the Enquiry Officer, so permits, he can have the assistance of the Legal Practitioner. 3. Pursuant to the said information, the petitioner gave a letter to the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer was the Officer of the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Chennai, and he informed the petitioner that since charges levelled against the petitioner were not serious, technical and were ordinary allegations, the petitioner need not have the assistance of legal practitioner. It is, at this juncture, the petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition. 4. The contention raised by the petitioner was that Rule 17 (b) of the Rules, provides for the engagement of a legal practitioner and there are 85 departmental witnesses to be examined and the petitioner is a driver and he cannot effectively defend himself and the denial was arbitrary. 5. It is fairly submitted that under the Service Rules for Employees of the Sports Development Authority, in respect of conducting an enquiry, under Rule 59, it was provided that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1973 [since has been recasted as Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules], will apply to the employees, subject to the modification set out in the said rules. There is no modification in respect of the procedure for conducting an enquiry. 6. A reference to Rule 17 (b) of the Rules, will show that under the third proviso to Rule 17 (b) of the Rules, it is stated as follows:- "... There is no modification in respect of the procedure for conducting an enquiry. 6. A reference to Rule 17 (b) of the Rules, will show that under the third proviso to Rule 17 (b) of the Rules, it is stated as follows:- "... Provided further that the Government servant may take the assistance of any retired Government servant to present the case on his behalf but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the inquring authority is a legal practitioner or the inquiring authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. Explanation.- The Government servant shall not take the assistance of any retired Government servants, who has two pending disciplinary cases on hand, in which he has to give assistance." (Emphasis added) 7. In the present case, it is clearly admitted that the second respondent / Enquiry Officer is not an advocate and is only a Departmental Officer and therefore, the rule do not permit the assistance of a legal practitioner, as a matter of right. In this case, the Enquiry Officer also held that it is not a case warranting the discretion to be used in his favour. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be violative of Rule 17 (b) read with Rule 59 of the said Rules. 8. The question, whether as a matter of right, a legal practitioner can appear in a departmental enquiry, came to be considered in a number decisions by the Supreme Court. 9. The Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Others, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 626 has held that the Standing Order providing for the right of representation by an employee who is facing a disciplinary action only by the member of the trade union is a valid provision. 10. The Supreme Court in CIPLA Ltd., and Others v. Ripu Daman Bhanot and another, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 188 , has held that where there is discretion to permit an advocate, it should be depend upon the complicated question involved, which could not be tackled by him as he was a layman to the procedure. 11. 10. The Supreme Court in CIPLA Ltd., and Others v. Ripu Daman Bhanot and another, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 188 , has held that where there is discretion to permit an advocate, it should be depend upon the complicated question involved, which could not be tackled by him as he was a layman to the procedure. 11. The Supreme Court in Cresent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd., vs. Ram Naresh Tripathi, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 115 has held that the right to be represented through counsel or agent can be restricted, controlled or regulated by statutes, rules, regulations or standing orders and that a charged official has no right to be represented through counsel or agent unless the law specifically confers such a right. 12. Therefore, in the absence of any positive rule in favour of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. This Court does not find that any case has been made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order passed against him. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.