JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - This second appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the plaintiff-respondent in a suit filed by him against the dismissal order dated 22-9-1965 passed by the Deputy Chief Engineer, D.L.W., Varanasi and the order dated 28-2-1966 passed by the General Manager, D.L.W. Varanasi dismissing the plaintiff's appeal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that the plaintiff was employed as Material Checking Clerk on 15-5-1959 in the Locomotive Component Works by the Engineer-in-Chief, D.L.W. While working in the D.L.W., on 7-10-1964, he was charge-sheeted in respect of some serious misconduct for causing the loss of 4.409 metric tonnes of rods by manipulation and interpolation of the relevant entries in the records. An enquiry against the plaintiff was set up which constituted, among other officers, Sri S.K. Raul. On the basis of the preliminary enquiry a prima facie case against the plaintiff was found and, therefore, a regular charge-sheet was given to him on 7-10-1964. 3. During the enquiry the plaintiff wanted assistance of someone who was posted at Varanasi but outside the D.L.W., Varanasi The enquiry board, however, refused to permit this and insisted that the plaintiff could seek assistance of anyone who was working in D.L.W. but the plaintiff did not avail of this opportunity. The Enquiry Committee found the plaintiff guilty and by order dated 22-9-1965 the services of the plaintiff, were finally terminated. The plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed on 28-2-1966 by the General Manager. 4. The plaintiff thereafter filed this suit challenging the validity of the above orders mainly on two grounds, firstly that the plaintiff was not given-proper opportunity of being represented and secondly that Sri S.K. Kaul was a member of the fact finding committee and was also a member of the enquiry committee finally constituted for looking into the charges and this has vitiated the enquiry proceedings. 5. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit but on appeal the lower Appellate Court allowed the same and held that the enquiry was vitiated but left it to the department to launch, another proceeding, if so desired, after following the principles of natural justice. The Union of India, owning the Railways, aggrieved by the said decision of the lower Appellate Court, has come up in second appeal before this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Union of India, owning the Railways, aggrieved by the said decision of the lower Appellate Court, has come up in second appeal before this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been argued that the grounds on which the lower Appellate Court has decided the suit are not proper or legal and the relevant rule-has not been properly appreciated. 7. It may be stated that the Indian Railways system is divided into 9 zones and each Zonal Railway Administration is headed by a General Manager who is answerable to the Railway Board. Apart from the Zonal Administration there are some production units which too are under the control of the General Manager while the Research, Design and Standard Organisation at Lucknow is headed by the Director-General who is also equivalent to the rank of a General Manager. The D.L.W. is also one of the production units of the Railway Administration and is under the charge of a General Manager. 8. The services of the Railway employees are governed by the rules known as the Indian Railway Establishment Code which provides for recruitment, conduct and discipline etc. and such other things in respect of the employees of the Railways. Rule 1712 of this Code deals with the procedure which is to be adopted during an enquiry against the delinquent Railway employee. It reads as under: "Inquiry Procedure: (1) On receipt of written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority or the Board of Inquiry or the Inquiring Officer, as the case may be, may inquire into such of the charges as are not admitted. If no-such statement is received within the time specified the Disciplinary or Inquiring Authority may inquire into all-charges. At such an inquiry a definite charge in writing shall be framed and explained to the Railway servant in respect of each offence which has not been admitted by him, and the evidence in support of it, along with any evidence which he may adduce in defence, shall be recorded in his presence. If the Inquiring Authority comes to the conclusion that the accused employee is evading to take part in the proceeding or his request to adjourn the hearings are not bona fide, he may proceed with the enquiry ex parte after recording the reasons in writing. If the Inquiring Authority comes to the conclusion that the accused employee is evading to take part in the proceeding or his request to adjourn the hearings are not bona fide, he may proceed with the enquiry ex parte after recording the reasons in writing. (2) The Disciplinary Authority may, where considered necessary, nominate any Railway/Government servant to present the case in support of the charges before the authority inquiring into the charges (hereinafter referred to as the Inquiring Authority). The accused Railway servant may present his case with the assistance of any other Railway servant (including a Railway servant on leave preparatory to retirement) employed on the same Railway Administration on which he is working. If the accused employee is employed in the office of the Railway Board, its attached office or subordinate office, he may present his case with the assistance of any other employee (including an employee on leave preparatory to retirement) employed in the office of the Railway Board attached office or subordinate office, as the case may be, in which he is working. Note 1. - In the case of a non-Gazetted Railway servant he may have the assistance of an official of a Railway Administration on which the accused Railway servant is employed, but shall not engage a professional lawyer. The term 'Professional Lawyer' includes those who are competent to practise in a Court of law. A Trade Union official shall not be allowed to appear in a disciplinary case before an Officer or a Committee of Inquiry unless he has worked as such in a recognised Railway Trade Union for a period of at least one year, continuously before he appears and subject to the condition that he takes no fees. Note 2. - Nomination of an Assisting Railway servant/Railway Trade Union official shall not be accepted if at the dime of nomination the Assisting Railway servant/Railway Trade Union official has more than two pending disciplinary case in which he is to assist. (3) The Inquiring Authority shall, in the course of the inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence, including cross-examination of the Railway servant and witnesses, as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. (3) The Inquiring Authority shall, in the course of the inquiry, consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence, including cross-examination of the Railway servant and witnesses, as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. The Railway servant shall have the opportunity of adducing evidence on which he relies, the evidence of witnesses shall be taken in his presence, he or the person assisting him shall be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses and no materials shall be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them. The person presenting the case in support of the charges shall be entitled to cross-examine the Railway servant and the witnesses examined in his defence. (4) At the conclusion of the Inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the enquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges, together with the reasons therefor. If, in the opinion of such authority the proceedings of the inquiry establish charges different from those originally framed it may record findings on such charges provided that findings on such charges shall not be recorded unless the Railway servant has admitted the facts constituting them or has had an opportunity of defending himself against them. (5) The record of the inquiry shall include (i) The charges framed against the Railway servant and the statement of allegations furnished to him under R. 1709; (ii) His written statement of defence, if any; (iii) The oral evidence taken in the course of inquiry; (iv) The documentary evidence considered in the course of inquiry; (v) The orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regard to the inquiry; and (vi) A report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor." 9. The relevant part of this rule is sub-cl. (2) which lays down that the accused Railway servant may present his case with the assistance of any other Railway servant employed in the same Railway Administration on which he is working. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that this rule only entitles the delinquent Railway employee to seek assistance from any other Railway servant who must be employed in the same Railway Administration on which the delinquent Railway worker was working. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that this rule only entitles the delinquent Railway employee to seek assistance from any other Railway servant who must be employed in the same Railway Administration on which the delinquent Railway worker was working. The D.L.W. being a separate Railway Administration, being one of its production units headed by independent General Manager, is under separate Railway Administration and, therefore, the plaintiff could seek the assistance only of such a Railway employee as was working under the General Manager D.L.W. The rights and the facilities which have been provided to the delinquent Railway employee under this Rule cannot be extended and it cannot be left at the sweet will of the Railway employee to seek the assistance of any person of his choice. His choice in this matter is limited by the Rules and if what is granted under the rules was permitted to be made use of by the Railway employee he cannot turn round and complain that the principles of natural justice had not been complied with or that he had been put to any prejudice on that account. May be that the disciplinary authority may have allowed even an outsider to assist the plaintiff but then it would have been a matter of grace but not a matter of right of the plaintiff. As a matter of right the plaintiff could only seek the assistance of a Railway employee working only in the same Railway administration and not even of any other Railway Administration outside the Railway Administration of the D.L.W., although working at Varanasi itself. 10. In Union of India v. J.N. Sinha, ( AIR 1971 SC 40 ), it has been laid down that "the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules nor can they be elevated to the position of fundamental rights. Their aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They do not supplant the law but supplement it If a statutory provision can be read consistently with the principles of natural justice, the Courts should do so. Their aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They do not supplant the law but supplement it If a statutory provision can be read consistently with the principles of natural justice, the Courts should do so. But if a statutory provision, either specifically or by necessary implication, excludes the application of any rules of natural justice, then the Court cannot ignore -mandate of the legislature or the statutory authority and read into the concerned provisions the principles of natural justice. Whether the exercise of a power conferred should be made in accordance with any of the principles of natural justice or not depends upon the express words of the provision conferring the power, the nature of the power conferred, the purpose for which it is conferred and the effect of the exercise of that power." 11. The above dictum of the Supreme Court clearly lays down, therefore, that if the rules specified the manner in which an enquiry is to be made and those rules are properly followed then it cannot be argued that the principles of natural justice have been violated in any manner. 12. One of the principles of natural justice is that the reasonable opportunity of being heard should be provided to the delinquent employee. What is meant by 'reasonable opportunity' has been laid down in Major U.R. Bhatt v. Union of India ( AIR 1962 SC 1344 ). There the enquiry officer had afforded to the public servant an opportunity to remain present and to make his defence but because of the conduct of the public servant in declining to participate in the enquiry, all the witnesses of the State who could have been examined in support of their case were not examined viva voce. Held, that, under the circumstances the enquiry officer was justified in proceeding to act upon the materials placed before him. In this case the plaintiff was given a charge-sheet. An opportunity was given to him to reply the same and to take part in the proceedings and to take necessary steps in the cross-examination of the witnesses and also to produce his own evidence but if the plaintiff just tried to shy away from that order and did not fully participate in the same, he must thank himself. 13. An opportunity was given to him to reply the same and to take part in the proceedings and to take necessary steps in the cross-examination of the witnesses and also to produce his own evidence but if the plaintiff just tried to shy away from that order and did not fully participate in the same, he must thank himself. 13. The principles of natural justice only require that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the delinquent employee. It may vary according to the circumstances of each case. The principles of natural justice are always servient to the provisions of the Code or the Rules under which the enquiry is being conducted. The Railway Establishment Code lays down the definite procedure and it is not necessary that the Code ought to have provided that the delinquent employee would be given an opportunity of assistance of any outsider but if the rules provided for and in accordance with the same an opportunity had been given to him then the delinquent employee could not complain that the opportunity given to him was not proper or did not satisfy him. The principles of natural justice would, therefore, not cater for the whims of the delinquent employee but would be circumscribed by the scope and the limitation within which the Rules, itself permit the enjoyment of the assistance in the matter of enquiry. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the D.L.W. is a production unit where the employees are directly under the G.M. who is the in-charge of the D.L.W. According to him, if any enquiry takes place within D.L.W., the other employees are afraid of giving assistance to the delinquent employee. Thus the very purpose of the Rule 1712 (2) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code is frustrated. According to him, there was no one who might have been prepared to help the plaintiff in the enquiry with the result that the plaintiff was greatly prejudiced in the matter. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent may be attractive but it has no merit. According to him, there was no one who might have been prepared to help the plaintiff in the enquiry with the result that the plaintiff was greatly prejudiced in the matter. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent may be attractive but it has no merit. If for example, a delinquent employee, by his general misbehaviour, has antagonised all his fellow workers and no one is prepared to help him in his hour of need, can he for this, lay blame on the Railway Administration although the Rule may provide that the plaintiff was entitled to seek assistance from the fellow worker. The rule does not compel any fellow worker to come to the assistance of the plaintiff but only entitles the plaintiff to seek assistance, if available from his fellow workers, and if they are willing to assist him. It will be carrying the intent and the purpose of note 2 of the Code too far if we were to extend the interpretation to the case when no fellow worker was available from that Railway Administration then the plaintiff should have been allowed the assistance from outside as of right. Such an interpretation would be fraught with danger and cannot at all be accepted. To my mind, the disciplinary committee was perfectly within its right in not permitting the plaintiff any assistance during the proceedings from a person who was outside the Railway Administration of the D.L.W. This, therefore, cannot be made as a ground for challenging the validity of the disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff. 15. The second ground' on which the validity of the dismissal order has been challenged was that Shri S.K. Kaul was a member of the preliminary enquiry committee and was also a member of the regular disciplinary committee and as such it has vitiated the entire proceedings. By its very nature, the preliminary enquiry is conducted merely for the purpose of finding out prima facie whether there is at all a case to be enquired into. The proper and detailed enquiry only follows after the charge-sheet has been given. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant on the second point argued that the plaintiff never raised any objection against the presence of Mr. The proper and detailed enquiry only follows after the charge-sheet has been given. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant on the second point argued that the plaintiff never raised any objection against the presence of Mr. S.K. Kaul on the Board of Disciplinary Committee of his case and that at no stage any objection was taken by the plaintiff that Shri S.K. Kaul's presence in the enquiry committee would in any manner, prejudice him. He allowed the proceedings to go on and ultimately at the time of the suit he wanted to question the validity of the enquiry on the ground that Shri S.K. Kaul was present in the enquiry committee. In this connection a reference has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant to a decision in Dr. G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow ( AIR 1976 SC 2428 ). In this case, a candidate appeared before the selection committee knowing full well the members of the Selection Board and voluntarily appeared before it for interview. He did not raise any objection against the presence of any member on the Selection Board. But, when he was not selected he objected that a member present in the Board was ill-disposed and prejudiced against him and, therefore, the decision of the selection committee was vitiated. It was held by the Supreme Court that such a candidate cannot, after appearing before the Board and taking a chance of favourable recommendation in his favour turn round and question the constitution of the Board when the decision was unfavourable to him. 17. The principle laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case also. The plaintiff, first appeared before the disciplinary committee and when the matter was decided against him finally by the General Manager he filed the present suit questioning the presence of Sri S.K. Kaul on the disciplinary committee. This is too late a stage to complain of such an objection. It may also be noted here that no allegation at all has been made against Sri S.K. Kaul about any prejudice against the plaintiff. This is too late a stage to complain of such an objection. It may also be noted here that no allegation at all has been made against Sri S.K. Kaul about any prejudice against the plaintiff. The mere presence of Sri S.K. Kaul both as member of the preliminary enquiry committee as well as the member of the disciplinary committee without there being any charge of any prejudice against the plaintiff will not vitiate the decision of the disciplinary committee when such an objection has never been raised before the filing of the suit. 18. In the circumstances stated above, I am of the view that the lower appellate court has not correctly appreciated the real controversy involved in the suit and has misconstrued the provisions contained in Rule 1712 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. 19. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the impugned orders were valid and effective. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs throughout.