The chancellor's office at the University of Maryland has rejected a request by Herman Veal's attorney that someone representing his client's interests be part of a review panel looking into Coach Lefty Driesell's intervention in a disciplinary action involving Veal and into leaks of confidential information from it.

In a letter to Chancellor John B. Slaughter last week, Stuart J. Robinson, Veal's attorney and a former president of Maryland's student government, said he also raised questions about the student judicial process in general and about possible interference by university employes in the basketball player's case in particular.

Robinson's revelations yesterday were the first to come from Veal's side since the case became became public.

After a student judicial board upheld a complaint by a female student that Veal tried to force sexual attentions on her, Veal was declared ineligible for the remainder of the past basketball season. The woman subsequently complained to the university student legal aid office that Driesell tried to pressure her into dropping the complaint the morning after Veal's appeals were exhausted.

Slaughter said last night that he has rejected Robinson's request for representation. "The review will not include someone assigned or recommended by anybody," he said.

The chancellor said certain points raised by Robinson in his letter will be covered by the review panel, but that modification of the student judicial process "is not a function of the investigation committee."

Robinson also said after Veal became ineligible for the final regular-season game and tournament play, he offered Gary Pavela, director of judicial programs, and Dennis Blumer, an executive assistant to Slaughter, this deal: Veal would take a voluntary suspension for the first six games next season, if they would allow him to finish this season. The offer was not accepted.

"We don't determine our disciplinary action based on the schedule of athletic teams," Pavela said last night. He declined further comment.

Slaughter said: "We never considered ever changing the final decision. I rejected any other alternative after that."

Robinson, who has represented Veal since his appeals were exhausted March 4, says these are the major problems he cited about the student judicial system in his letter to the chancellor:

* That cases involving criminal allegations should be tried in a circuit court, a district court or under municipal ordinances and not in the student judicial system, and that if the campus police decide there is not enough evidence to pursue the case in a criminal court, or the alleged victim does not want to, then the complaint should be dropped.

* That the person accused in the complaint should have the same rights as a defendant in a criminal case, among them being informed before being questioned that anything he says may be used against him and that he has a right to an attorney, that his guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that he must be able to screen the selection of members of the board and that the board's decision must be unanimous. According to Robinson, Veal signed a statement with campus police investigating the woman's complaint. Since the judicial board acts administratively and under its own rules of due process, its standards do not include determining guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or a unanimous verdict, he said.

* That Veal was put in double jeopardy because he was asked to move out of his dormitory on Dec. 6, the day the South Residence Board made a recommendation that Veal's penalties should be loss of campus housing privileges and 10 hours of community service, but not loss of eligibility, according to Robinson.

The board then reconvened two weeks later and imposed a stronger penalty that included 24 hours of community service and loss of eligibility until after the fall semester of 1983, according to Robinson. An appellate board upheld this decision, but Veal's ineligibility was reduced to the end of the second semester of summer school during a further appeal to the office of the vice chancellor for student affairs, according to Robinson.

Robinson wants to find out if any university employe put pressure on the judicial board to change its recommendation. The final decision, however, is Pavela's, as director of judicial programs, according to the university.

"All the different parties should have an active participation in the review process so everything possible is being done to get a true set of facts to find out who violated the process," Robinson said.