JUDGMENT 1. - This is a second appeal by Union of India, through General Manage. , Western Railway, Churchgate, Bombay against the judgment and decree of Additional Civil Judge No. 1 Kota in Civil Appeal No. 82 of 1973 confirming the decree of Munsif, Kota in Civil Suit No. 226 of 1965. 2. The respondent happens W -N-T6w paid employee being a Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force. On February 22. 1963 a rebitter was caught while carrying coal stolen by him. It was said that this was done at the instigation or by abatement of the plaintiff Rakshak. 3. A departmental enquiry was conducted and ultimately the plaintiff was removed from service. 4. After not getting any relief it, the departmental hierachy the plaintiff filed the suit. The only ground which found favour with the first appellate Court was that the defence witness Bachchi Ram was not allowed to be produced in the departmental enquiry. The refusal was made by the Departmental Enqui y officer on the ground that was to be examined as prosecution witness. When he was not examined as prosecution witness, the plaintiff again made a request to examine him, but even then he was not examined. 5. According to the first appellate Court he was very important material witness. Surprisingly enough he was cited as a prosecution witness and was not examined as defence witness on this pretext and then dropped from the list of prosecution witness. Even then when a request was made, it was refused. 6. Mr. Bapna pointed out that the delinquent employee himself has given in writing that he had no grievance and he has been allowed opportunity to lead defence evidence. On a perusal of this document, I find that this is a document in English language typed and it appears that the departmental authorities in order to ensure that no grievance is made, later on got the signatures of the employees almost in a routine. A low paid employee and that too lowest in the ladder like Rakshak can hardly understand implication of such an endorsement on which his signatures were obtained. Even if he signs such a document voluntarily, it will have to be seen at totality of the circumstances of the case as to whether the witness was material and his non-production will vitiate the proceedings. Even if he signs such a document voluntarily, it will have to be seen at totality of the circumstances of the case as to whether the witness was material and his non-production will vitiate the proceedings. However, I am in agreement with the first appellate Court that great prejudice has been caused to the employees by not-examination of this witness. Consequently the dismissal of the appeal and granting a decree in favour of this plaintiff appears to be wholly justified and calls for no interference. 7. Mr. Bapna submits that when the decree was passed only on account of non-examination of a witness, the Railway should b.. allowed to permit the employee to examine him in accordance with law and complete the enquiry. Although this request cannot be said to be unreasonable and is technically allowed, but it would be for the departmental authorities to con side. before proceeding afresh whether in a case of low paid employee like a Rakshak it would be in the interest of justice to recommence proceedings now again after lapse of such a long time. In case the interest of justice so requires, it would be open to the Railway to proceed again afresh but that would not prejudice and would not deprive the employee of the benefits which he has already earned so far and any order passed in pursuance of that enquiry would be prospective only. 8. With these observations the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******