`IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.17046 of 2008 Between: Palur Veera Venkata Surya Bhaskar S/o.Pattabhiramayya R/o.D.No.12-3-32/3,Seshayyametta Rajahmundry,East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND District And Sessions Judge, East Godavari Rajahmundry .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to engage an advocate private legal practitioner in the Departmental enquiry/proceedings of the Hon`ble District Judge cum Disciplinary Authority dated 25.6.2007 in Dis.No.4818 dated 29.6.2007 of East Godavari. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondent: (SC FOR APHC)D.V.SITHARAM MURTHY The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.17046 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is working as a Typist in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him on the allegation, inter alia, that he misbehaved with woman co-employee. Central Nazir was appointed as Presenting Officer. The petitioner made a request on 20.02.2008 to the Enquiry Oﬃcer – Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, for engaging a legal practitioner. The same was denied on 22.02.2008. Contending that the Enquiry Oﬃcer is not competent to reject the application for engaging legal practitioner, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.6646 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court on 09.04.2008 observing that the Enquiry Oﬃcer cannot take a decision on such application. The matter, therefore, was placed before the learned District Judge, who passed orders on 30.06.2008 turning down request of the petitioner for engaging legal practitioner on the ground that the Department itself did not engage legal practitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and filed instant writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client has been falsely implicated in the disciplinary enquiry and to bring out the truth assistance of legal practitioner is required. We are, however, not impressed with such argument. A reading of Rule 20(5)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (the Rules, for brevity) would show that absolute discretion is given to the Disciplinary Authority to permit a charged oﬃcer to engage legal practitioner. Rule 20(5)(c) of the Rules no doubt requires permission to engage legal practitioner when the Presenting Oﬃcer is legal practitioner. In this case, Central Nazir, Presenting Oﬃcer, is an employee of the District Court and is not a legal practitioner. The petitioner has no right, much less enforceable right, to seek Mandamus as prayed from this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ V.V.S.RAO, J 06th August, 2008 __________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J GHN To 1. District And Sessions Judge, East Godavari Rajahmundry 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}