In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.3184 of 1987 ..... Date of decision:20.9.2011 The Punjab State and another .....Appellants v. Hardip Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. None for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This regular second appeal is directed by the defendants (appellants herein) against the judgment and decree dated 12.9.1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 27.3.1984 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar has been accepted. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent herein) was working as Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I (appellant No.2). During his employment, he was served with two charge-sheets dated R.S.A. No.3184 of 1987 [2] 22.2.1980 and 11.4.1980 for misappropriation of `849.95 and `9.60 respectively. After inquiry, his services were terminated vide impugned order dated 15.4.1982 passed by appellant No.2. A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff-respondent challenging the order dated 15.4.1982 being illegal, void and inoperative. After appreciating the evidence and material on record, the trial Court upheld the order dated 15.4.1982. It was held that proper procedure was adopted and after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the impugned order was passed. The appellant's plea that no assistance was provided to him and he could not get the help of a co-worker to defend himself was rejected on the ground that during cross-examination, he could not recollect the name of the Store Keeper, to whom he submitted application for providing the assistance of a co-worker. He even did not recollect the name of the employee, whose assistance he intended to take. It was held the civil Court is not to sit in judgment over the findings of the Inquiry Officer as the scope of interference is limited to the extent that it has to see that principles of natural justice have been followed and that proper procedure had been adopted during the course of inquiry. The Inquiry Officer is not obliged to record a detailed judgment like an order of civil Court. It was held that even if any provision of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules had been violated at the time of conducting inquiry, the appellant had to allege and prove as to what prejudice was caused to him due to the non-compliance of that provision. The violation if at all any is not fatal unless it has resulted in some prejudice to the plaintiff in the present case. There was enough evidence to show that he failed to deposit R.S.A. No.3184 of 1987 [3] the cash amounting to `849.95 relating to 15.1.1980. On an another occasion, i.e. on 22.2.1980 when his bus was checked, it was found that he had issued less tickets to the tune of `9.60. Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the inquiry proceedings were legal and the impugned order dated 15.4.1982 was sustainable in the eyes of law and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted by the first appellate Court relying on Rule 8 (8) of of Punjab Civil Service Punishment and Appeal Rules and the judgment of Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, (1983) 2 SCC 442 by holding that the person who comes to the Court was not acquainted with the implications of a departmental inquiry and failing to provide assistance of co-worker has caused prejudice to him. Therefore, it came to the conclusion that the action taken against the plaintiff could not be held to be sustainable at law and resultantly his appeal was allowed. Aggrieved from this judgment and decree, the State of Punjab has come in second appeal. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the appellants-State. However, as no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent, the records of the Courts below have been perused carefully. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab argued that the plaintiff was given full and adequate opportunity to defend himself and that the inquiry proceedings were also conducted rightly and in conformity with the requirements of law. He further argued that the Inquiry Officer who R.S.A. No.3184 of 1987 [4] conducted the domestic disciplinary inquiry, which led to the passing of the impugned order, did not contravene or deviate from any mandatory provisions of law. Therefore, there is no question of his findings being vitiated in any manner. The delinquent official was given full and adequate opportunity to present his case in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and the case law relied upon by the learned lower appellate Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The plaintiff has pleaded before the Courts below that he was not provided with the assistance of a co-worker to defend himself before the Inquiry Officer. Rule 8 (8) of the Punjab Civil Service Punishment and Appeal Rules, which deals with for providing the assistance of co-worker reads as under:- “8. Procedure for imposing major penalties- (1) to (7) xx xx xx xx (8) The Government employee may take the assistance of any other Government employee or a retired Government employee to present the case on his behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the punishing authority is a legal practitioner, or the punishing authority having regards to the circumstances of the case, so permits. xx xx xx xx xx” A perusal of the above provision shows that word `may' has been provided in the above Rule i.e. the employee may take the assistance of any other Government employee or a retired Government employee to present R.S.A. No.3184 of 1987 [5] the case on his behalf. In cross-examination, the plaintiff stated that he had filed an application for the assistance of his co-worker before the Record Keeper but he did not recollect his name etc. He did not remember the name of the worker whose assistance he intended to take. He did not know English and Punjabi and he identified his signatures on the inquiry file (Ex.PA). He denied the suggestion that he was made aware of the charges against him before the start of inquiry. He does not remember the name of the employee to whom he submitted an application for providing him assistance nor he could remember the name of the employee whose assistance he intended to take during the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry has been properly conducted and he has been given adequate opportunity to defend himself. A show cause notice has been issued to him and as such I do not find any fault in the inquiry which has been rightly conducted. Hence, the first appellate Court has wrongly relied upon the above rule and the judgment of the Supreme Court, as the facts of that case are not applicable in the present case. In the above noted case, the Supreme Court has held that right to be represented by another government servant in departmental proceedings upheld where in a joint disciplinary proceedings conducted against a class IV servant and his officer, Department was being represented by a Presenting Officer and the co-delinquent officer was being represented by another officer, but no opportunity was provided to the lower class servant, held, the inquiry was vitiated and must be quashed. However, position is entirely different in the present case and he is not liable to raise the plea that he was not permitted to take the assistance of a co-worker. Under the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the R.S.A. No.3184 of 1987 [6] judgment and decree of the first appellate Court are set aside and that of the learned trial Court are affirmed. September 20, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*