ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. The Director and Disciplinary Authority, National Institute of Unani Medicine and two others have filed the present writ petition against the Order dated 03.07.2017 made in Original Application No.170/00321/2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, allowing the Application to the extent that the applicant cannot engage lawyer, but at the same time, she can engage any Government Servant retired or in situ of any department of her choice, as defense assistant. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3. The respondent/applicant filed O.A.No.170/00321/2017 seeking to quash the Orders dated 28.02.2017 and 02.05.2017 rejecting the request of the applicant to engage the services of a defense assistant who is not an employee of National Institute of Unani Medicine. 4. It is the case of the applicant that she was appointed as Lower Division Clerk/Cashier in the office of the National Institute of Unani Medicine on 18.01.2006 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk/Store Keeper in the year 2015, after successfully completing the probationary period for two years. On 13.09.2015, a Charge Memo came to be issued to the applicant alleging that she had failed to maintain cash book ledger etc for preparation and submission of annual accounts, non submission of re-written cash book and ledger for the year 2014-2015, non-preparation of pay bill and non disbursement of salary etc. The Inquiry Officer, without providing any opportunity to the applicant, submitted the report dated 12.07.2016. Thereafter, second show cause Notice dated 03.08.2016 was issued the applicant. The second respondent, by the Order dated 27.09.2016 appointed fresh Inquiry Officer, who, by the Order dated 28.02.2017 rejected the representation of the applicant to engage Defense Assistant on her behalf to assist her in the Inquiry. The applicant, aggrieved by the said Order, submitted a representation to the second respondent with a request to allow her to engage a Defense Assistant of her choice i.e., to engage either a retired Central Government employee or a serving Central Government Employee, which came to be rejected by the Order dated 02.05.2017. 5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the applicant filed the Original Application for the relief sought for. 5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the applicant filed the Original Application for the relief sought for. The Central Administrative Tribunal, considering the contentions of both the parties, allowed the application to the extent that the applicant cannot engage lawyer, but, she can engage any Government Servant retired or in situ of any department of her choice, on the ground that the applicant, as a Government employee under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, is entitled to the best defense she can get. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri Amaresh N, learned counsel for the petitioners/National Institute of Unani Medicine, contended with vehemence that the impugned Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the application permitting the applicant to engage any Government Servant retired or in situ of any department of her choice, is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and cannot be sustained. He would contend that the petitioner Institution is an autonomous body and its employees cannot be treated as Central Government Employees. The Institute is functioning purely on the grants received from the Ministry of AYUSH. The service conditions of the employees are governed by its own rules and regulations as laid down in its bye-laws, Circulars and the instructions issued by the Management from time to time/Memorandum of Association. In respect of the matters not provided for in the bye-laws, the rules as applicable to the Central Government servants regarding general conditions of service, pay, allowance, TA and daily allowances, foreign service terms, deputation in India and abroad etc., and orders and decisions issued in this regard by the Central Government from time to time, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of the Institute. Therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal is not justified in allowing the application. 8. The learned counsel further contended that Rule 14(8)(a) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is applicable in the present case and the same is followed by the petitioner/Institute because bye-law No.48 provides that Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules and also the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, are adopted and the same are applicable mutatis mutandis to the employees of National Institute of Unani Medicine. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to allow the writ petition. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to allow the writ petition. 9. Per contra, Sri A.R. Holla, learned counsel for the respondent/ applicant sought to justify the impugned Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and contended that bye-law No.48 contemplates adoption of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules and also the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, mutatis mutandis to the employees of National Institute of Unani Medicine. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Central Government employees cannot be treated as employees of National Institute of Unani Medicine cannot be accepted since the petitioners have not framed any independent separate Rules. In the absence of separate Rules framed by the petitioners/National Institute of Unani Medicine, and once the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, are adopted, the applicant is entitled to engage any Government Servant retired or in situ of any department of her choice as defense assistant. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration are : (i) Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal is justified in allowing the Original Application permitting the respondent/ applicant who is an employee of the petitioner-National Institute of Unani Medicine to engage any retired Government Servant or in situ of any department of her choice as defense assistant? (ii) Whether the employees of National Institute of Unani Medicine can engage any retired government Servant or in situ of any department of their choice to defend themselves in the disciplinary enquiry? 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record, carefully. 12. It is an undisputed fact that the applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk/Cashier in the office of the National Institute of Unani Medicine on 18.01.2006 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk/Store Keeper in the year 2015. On 13.09.2015, a Charge Memo came to be issued against the applicant. Thereafter, second show cause Notice dated 03.08.2016 was issued. The Inquiry Officer, by the Order dated 28.02.2017 rejected the representation of the applicant to permit her to engage Defense Assistant of her choice to assist her in the Inquiry. On 13.09.2015, a Charge Memo came to be issued against the applicant. Thereafter, second show cause Notice dated 03.08.2016 was issued. The Inquiry Officer, by the Order dated 28.02.2017 rejected the representation of the applicant to permit her to engage Defense Assistant of her choice to assist her in the Inquiry. The representation given by the applicant also came to be rejected by the Order dated 02.05.2017. Aggrieved by the said Orders, the applicant filed the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 13. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have not framed any separate Rules and Regulations with regard to service conditions of its employees. The bye-law Nos.48 and 49 pertaining to the Conduct, Discipline and Penalties of the Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations, Bye-Laws, 1984 (as amended upto 28th February, 2015) of the National Institute of Unani Medicine, Bengaluru, an autonomous body under Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, reads as under : 48. The Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules and also the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of the Government of India will, mutatis mutandis, apply to the employees of the Institute. 49. The authorities empowered to impose penalties shall be as specified in Annexure-B and the appeals from orders imposing any of the penalties specified shall be made to the authorities specified in column 4 or 5, as the case may be, of the said Annexure and whose decision shall be final. 14. The Rule 14(8)(a) contained in Chapter I, Part VI of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, provides for procedure for imposing major penalties, which reads as under : “14. 14. The Rule 14(8)(a) contained in Chapter I, Part VI of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, provides for procedure for imposing major penalties, which reads as under : “14. Procedure for imposing major penalties: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (8)(a) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant posted in any office either at his headquarters or at the place where the inquiry is held, to present the case on his 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: Provided that the Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant posted at any other station, if the Inquiring Authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, and for reasons to be recorded in writing so permits. NOTE: The Government servant shall not take the assistance of any other Government servant who has three pending disciplinary cases on hand in which has to give assistance. (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.” 15. Once the petitioners adopted the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, it applies mutatis mutandis to its employees. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that any Government servant of any department cannot be considered as an employee of the petitioners and therefore, the impugned Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is liable to be set-aside, cannot be accepted. The petitioner Institution has adopted the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. In view of Rule 14(8)(a) of the said Rules, charged officer is entitled to avail the assistance of any government servant or any retired government servant as defense assistant. The term government servant or retired government servant cannot be construed as servant or retired servant of the petitioner institution, in the absence of any Rule restricting the entitlement of charged officer to avail the services of an employee or retired employee of the petitioner institution. The term government servant or retired government servant cannot be construed as servant or retired servant of the petitioner institution, in the absence of any Rule restricting the entitlement of charged officer to avail the services of an employee or retired employee of the petitioner institution. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have adopted their own rules. It is their specific case that they have adopted the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the applicant cannot engage any other Government or retired Government Servant as defense assistant, cannot be accepted. 16. For the reasons stated above, the first point raised for consideration in the present writ petition is answered in the affirmative holding that, the Central Administrative Tribunal is justified in allowing the Original Application permitting the respondent/ applicant to engage any Government Servant retired or in situ of any department of her choice as defense assistant. Accordingly, the second point is also answered in the affirmative holding that the employees of petitioners-National Institute of Unani Medicine can engage any retired Government Servant or in situ of any department of their choice to defend themselves in the disciplinary enquiry. 17. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits and the impugned Order dated 03.07.2017 made in Original Application No.170/00321/2017 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, is hereby confirmed.