1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2073 OF 2009 Sou.Manngala Ashok Gurav. ..Petitioner. Versus Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, Kolhapur, and 2 others. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Rahul P. Walvekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S. Patwardhan, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. ... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : 16th JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The petitioner is facing an enquiry and she applied for allowing her to engage a legal practitioner to defend her in the enquiry proceedings. The application has been rejected. It is submitted that Sub-Rule 8 of Rule 8 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979 i.e. Rules, governing the service of the petitioner, lays down that when the presenting officer is a “law graduate” the person facing enquiry can engage an Advocate to represent him. On perusal of the said rule, we found that the Rules, however, provide that the Government servant can take assistance of any other Government Servant or retired Government Servant and there is bar to engage a legal practitioner unless the presenting officer of the disciplinary committee is a “legal practitioner”. This is clearly laid-down in Sub-Rule 8 of Rule 8 of the 2 Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979. It is stated in the present case by the respondents that the presenting officer is not a legal practitioner. The Counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was represented by her husband who is an Officer in the Corporation and the enquiry has already been completed and the report has been submitted. Since the petitioner was represented by an Officer, we do not find that any illegality has been committed by the respondent on account of which the order impugned needs to be quashed. Writ Petition is dismissed. [BILAL NAZKI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]