JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. This Second Appeal is by defendant No.2 in O. S. 910 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Thiruvananthapuram. Defendant No.2 is the Kerala Public Service Commission. Defendant No.l in the suit was the State of Kerala. Defendant No.l has been impleaded as respondent No.2 in this Second Appeal. 2. Respondent No. 1 herein, hereinafter described as the plaintiff filed the suit O. S. 910 of 1992 for a declaration that disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the order of dismissal passed against him and the order in appeal therefrom were vitiated by irregularities and illegalities and are therefore illegal and void and to declare that the plaintiff continues to remain in service as Deputy Secretary of Kerala Public Service Commission and entitled to full pay and allowances. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the suit was not maintainable, that nothing vitiated the enquiry proceedings, that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief from the Civil Court, and that the reliefs sought for are not capable of being granted by the Civil Court on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The trial court granted a decree to the plaintiff by granting a declaration that the disciplinary proceedings, the order of dismissal and the order in appeal were vitiated by irregularities and illegalities and hence are illegal and void and that the plaintiff continues to remain in service as Deputy Secretary in Kerala Public Service Commission. This decree was affirmed by the lower appellate court though the lower appellate court did not fully agree with the contentions raised by the plaintiff in the suit. This decree was affirmed by the lower appellate court though the lower appellate court did not fully agree with the contentions raised by the plaintiff in the suit. It is this concurrent declaration that is challenged in this Second Appeal by the Public Service Commission by raising the substantial questions of law whether the courts below were right in law in holding that the suit was maintainable, whether the courts below were in error in granting the declaratory relief without examining whether the alleged irregularities vitiated the enquiry held against the plaintiff, whether the courts below were in error in not enquiring into the question whether there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the Rules and of natural justice in completing the proceedings against the plaintiff and whether on the pleadings and the evidence in the case an illegality had not been committed in simply granting a declaration as sought for even without making it clear that the Public Service Commission was entitled to hold a proper enquiry and take suitable action against the plain tiff if the same was warranted by a fresh enquiry. This court admitted the Second Appeal on these questions. 3. The plaintiff was working as Deputy Secretary in the Kerala Public Service Commission. While he was so working, two persons made a complaint against the plaintiff. They complained that the plaintiff had taken money from them promising to include the name of one of them and the name of the wife of the other in the rank list for Lower Division Clerks. The names as promised were not included in the list. When they demanded the money back, the plaintiff issued cheques in the names of third persons so as to cover the amounts taken from them. The cheques were dishonoured. It is on the basis of these complaints that an enquiry was conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission. Originally the complaint was investigated by the Vigilance and Security Officer of the Commission and thereafter by the Vigilance Department of the State Government. On receipt of reports, the Kerala Public Service Commission decided to hold an enquiry against the plaintiff. An enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer found that the first charge framed was clearly proved. After issuing notice to the plaintiff and giving him an opportunity to show cause, an order was passed dismissing the plaintiff from service. On receipt of reports, the Kerala Public Service Commission decided to hold an enquiry against the plaintiff. An enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer found that the first charge framed was clearly proved. After issuing notice to the plaintiff and giving him an opportunity to show cause, an order was passed dismissing the plaintiff from service. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Governor against the order of dismissal. The said appeal was dismissed by the Governor confirming the order of dismissal of the plaintiff. It is thereafter that the plaintiff filed the suit O. S. 910 of 1992 seeking the declaration as referred to earlier. 4. The grounds urged in the plaint in support of the prayers in the plaint were that the reliance placed by the Enquiry Officer on the statements made by witnesses before the Investigating Officers during the preliminary enquiries was against the terms of the proviso to Art.311(2) of the Constitution of India since the penalty can be imposed only on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry and that such statements could not be made use of at all. It was also contended that even assuming that the statements made before the Investigating Officers could be admitted, the statements had to be read out to the witnesses at the time of enquiry and the Officer who made the enquiry in the present case only showed the statements to the witnesses and got replies to the effect that the statements were in fact made by them and this was not sufficient. The other grounds related to the acceptability or otherwise of the evidence available at the enquiry. The order in appeal by the Governor was challenged on the ground that it was not a speaking order. In its written statement, the Public Service Commission met these contentions by pointing out that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry in conformity with the rules and regulations and that the enquiry was conducted in conformity with the rules of natural justice. It was also pleaded that the statements of witnesses considered by the Enquiry Officer were read out to the witnesses in the enquiry and the witnesses also confirmed the genuineness of the statements. The Enquiry Officer had not relied on any of the statements obtained behind the back of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the statements of witnesses considered by the Enquiry Officer were read out to the witnesses in the enquiry and the witnesses also confirmed the genuineness of the statements. The Enquiry Officer had not relied on any of the statements obtained behind the back of the plaintiff. As regards the order of the Appellate Authority, it was contended that the Appellate Authority, the Governor had examined all the relevant records and had come to the conclusion independently that the appeal petition filed by the plaintiff did not merit consideration and only thereafter had dismissed the appeal. In addition to marking the enquiry report as Ext. A1, the Memorandum of Appeal as Ext. A3 and the relevant orders, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 in support of his challenge to the proceeding. The trial court found on a perusal of Ext. B7 file relating to the proceedings of the enquiry that the previous statements were read over to the witnesses and were marked and the plaintiff was given the opportunity to cross examine. The acknowledgment of the plaintiff was also taken to the effect that the statements' were recorded in his presence. The court also found that if the statements were not read over to the witnesses as contended by the plaintiff, he could have and he should have objected to their being marked in evidence then and there. Thus the court found that the case of the plaintiff that the previous statements were not read over to the witness at the enquiry was not established and could not be accepted. That court also found that the plea of the plaintiff that the statements could not be used for any purpose was also devoid of merit. The trial court found that there was omission to give copies of the previous statements of the witnesses to the plaintiff and this Was against the principles of natural justice. Solely on the basis of a finding that the copies of the documents, especially ail previous statements of the witnesses, have not been given to the plaintiff, the trial court held that the Enquiry Officer had violated the principles of natural justice. The court also stated that the Appellate Authority must be taken to have not applied its mind when it rejected the appeal by Ext. A4 order and in view of this position, the plaintiff was entitled to relief. The court also stated that the Appellate Authority must be taken to have not applied its mind when it rejected the appeal by Ext. A4 order and in view of this position, the plaintiff was entitled to relief. The lower appellate court found that the file relating to the proceeding at the enquiry showed that the copies of the statements were read out to the witnesses at the enquiry and hence the plaintiff could not be heard to say that the previous statements of the witnesses were not read over to the witnesses at the enquiry and their acknowledgments taken for the earlier statements made. The appellate court, found that the plaintiff had been given permission to peruse all the records and to make notes and an effective opportunity to cross examine the witnesses at the enquiry. Stating that there was nothing to show that copies of previous statements of the witnesses made before the Vigilance Officer were made available to the plaintiff and this violated the rules of natural justice, the lower appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial court. Relying on the Kerala Civil Services (CC and A) Rules, the appellate court also stated that the Appellate Authority had not passed an order in terms of R.31(2) of the Rules and hence the appellate order must also be considered to be invalid. It was thus that the appellate court confirmed the decree of the trial court. It is seen that ultimately the only point on which the decision is rested by the courts below is that the copies of the previous statements of the witnesses read over to those witnesses at the enquiry with opportunity to the plaintiff to cross examine the witnesses were not actually given to the plaintiff and that single fact would vitiate the enquiry. The question is howfar this view adopted by the courts below is correct in law. 5. It may be noted that on 5.8.1988 the plaintiff filed Ext. B1 petition requesting permission to peruse the relevant records and take down extracts from them on 8. 8.1988 and 9.8.1988. This permission sought for was granted by Ext. B2 communication dated 6.8.1988. The plaintiff accordingly perused the records including the previous statements referred to by the courts below and took notes or was in a position to take detailed notes. Thereafter the plaintiff made another request as per Ext. B3 dated 9.8.1988. 8.1988 and 9.8.1988. This permission sought for was granted by Ext. B2 communication dated 6.8.1988. The plaintiff accordingly perused the records including the previous statements referred to by the courts below and took notes or was in a position to take detailed notes. Thereafter the plaintiff made another request as per Ext. B3 dated 9.8.1988. Obviously this was after perusing the documents that were made available to him on 8.8.1988 and 9.8.1988. In this letter the plaintiff requested that the documents referred to in that letter may also be permitted to be perused and he may be permitted to take extracts from them. Item No. 1 therein was statements of the witnesses referred to as items 1 to 5 in the last part of the statement of allegations. Item No.2 was the report of the State Vigilance Department. Altogether eight items were sought to be perused. This permission was also granted and we see from Ext. B3 an endorsement by the plaintiff to the effect that all the documents except Vigilance Report and the cheque leaf were received by him for perusal. It may be noted that the statements of witnesses referred to as item No. 1 are of the persons referred to in the last paragraph of the statement of allegations and are the previous statements of the witnesses referred to in the plaint and by the courts below. It is also clear that the plaintiff after being so permitted was also given full liberty to cross examine the witnesses when they were examined at the enquiry. It may also be noted that the trial court has found that the plaintiff had acknowledged in the file that the previous statements of the witnesses were infact read over to them while holding the enquiry. 6. In my view, the mere fact that the copies of the previous statements of the witnesses were not handed over to the plaintiff would not vitiate the enquiry. It is clear that the plaintiff was given full opportunity to verify the entire records including those previous statements and to take notes or extracts as he wished, without any obstruction. It is also found by both the courts that the previous statements were read out to the witnesses examined at the enquiry and have acknowledged the same. It is clear that the plaintiff was given full opportunity to verify the entire records including those previous statements and to take notes or extracts as he wished, without any obstruction. It is also found by both the courts that the previous statements were read out to the witnesses examined at the enquiry and have acknowledged the same. It is also clear and the plaintiff has no case otherwise, that the plaintiff was given full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses not only with reference to what they stated at the enquiry but also with reference to their previous statements put to them during their examination at the enquiry. According to me this more than satisfies the requirements of natural justice in an enquiry of this nature. The supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa ( AIR 1963 SC 375 ) has stated. "What was actually under consideration was the procedure to be followed by quasi judicial bodies in holding enquiries, and the decision was that they were not bound to adopt the procedure followed in courts, and that it was only necessary that rules of natural justice should be observed. Discussing next what those rules required, it was observed that the person against whom a charge is made should know the evidence which is given against him, so that he might be in a position to give his explanation. When the evidence is oral, normally the examination of the witness will in its entirety, take place before the party charged, who will have full opportunity of cross examining him. The position is the same when a witness is called, the statement given previously by him behind the back of the party is put to him, and admitted in evidence, a copy thereof is given to the party, and he is given an opportunity to cross examine him. To require in that case that the contents of the previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word, and sentence by sentence, is to insist on bare technicalities, and rules of natural justice are matters not of form but of substance. To require in that case that the contents of the previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word, and sentence by sentence, is to insist on bare technicalities, and rules of natural justice are matters not of form but of substance. In our opinion they are sufficiently complied with when previous statements given by witnesses are read over to them, marked on their admission, copies thereof given to the person charged, and he is given an opportunity to cross examine them." The subsequent decisions brought to my notice also only reiterate the principle that the court must ensure that the rules of natural justice are complied with in an enquiry of this nature. If there is sufficient compliance with natural justice, it is not for the court to interfere or to act as an appellate court and consider whether the finding by the authority is justified. In the State Bank of Patiala v. S. K. Sharma ( 1996 (3) SCC 364 ) the Supreme Court summed up the position in Para.33 of the judgment and summarised the principles governing such matters. It was said that in the case of procedural provision which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the stand point of substantial compliance. Be that as it may, the order passed in violation of such a provision can be set aside only where such violation has gone to the prejudice of the delinquent. Their Lordships also stated that while applying the rule of audi altrem pattern (the primary principle of natural justice), the court/tribunal/authority must always bear in mind the ultimate and overriding, objective underlining the said rule, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is this objective which should guide them in applying the rule to varying situations that arise before them. In Para.34 of that judgment their Lordships noticed that in that particular case though copies of statements of two witnesses were not furnished, the delinquent was permitted to peruse the statement and take notes therefrom more than three days prior to their examination. The delinquent did not raise any objection during the enquiry that the non furnishing of the copies of the statements is disabling him or has disabled him as the case may be from effectively cross examining the witnesses or to defend himself. The delinquent did not raise any objection during the enquiry that the non furnishing of the copies of the statements is disabling him or has disabled him as the case may be from effectively cross examining the witnesses or to defend himself. Their Lordships noticed that the trial court had not found that any prejudice had resulted from the non furnishing of the statements as such. The appellate court had also not specified in what manner and in what sense was the delinquent prejudiced in his defence. Their Lordships held in this fact situation that there was no violation of natural justice and set aside the decree interfering with the enquiry and the punishment imposed. 7. According to me, in this case, the position is almost the same. No prejudice has been alleged by the plaintiff by the non furnishing of the statements themselves to him. He had also not raised any objection at the appropriate time to the procedure followed. Neither of the courts below have found that any prejudice was caused to the plaintiff by the non furnishing of the copies of the previous statements themselves. Under such circumstances, going by the ratio of the above decision, it is clear that the plaintiff has not established any ground for interference by the Civil Court. 8. In this context the recent decision in Kuldeep v. Commissioner of Police ( AIR 1999 SC 677 ) can also be referred to. Therein their Lordships held: "Normally the High Court and this court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of guilt is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would . be amenable to judicial scrutiny." Referring to the earlier decisions in State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa ( AIR 1963 SC 375 ), in Kesoram Cotton Mills v. Gangadar ( AIR 1964 SC 708 ) and in State of U.P. v. O. P. Gupta ( AIR 1970 SC 679 ) the Supreme Court stated that if a previous statement of the witness was intended to be brought on record at the enquiry, it could be done provided the witness was offered for cross examination by the delinquent. In the case on hand, clearly the plaintiff had given ample opportunity to cross examine the witnesses after he was given an opportunity to verify the entire records including the previous statements and to take copious notes and extracts from that. This is clear from Exts. B1 to B3. 9. It may now be relevant to note the grounds raised in this regard by the plaintiff in the appeal he filed against the decision of the original authority. Ext. A3 is the memorandum of appeal filed before the Governor. The grounds raised in this regard were that only the evidence adduced during the enquiry could be taken note of and the authority was in error in relying on the previous statements given by the witnesses. The second ground taken was that the previous statements had to be read out to the witnesses at the time of the enquiry and that mandate as laid down in State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa ( AIR 1963 SC 375 ) was not observed by the enquiry officer who merely showed the statements to the witnesses and got replies to the effect that they are genuine. It may be noted that this part of the case of the plaintiff has been found against by both the courts with reference to the records of the enquiry. It may also be noted that no complaint was raised by the plaintiff in that behalf that he was prejudiced for the reason that he was not given copies of the previous statements of the witnesses in their entirety. It may also be noted that there is no case that he was prejudiced thereby before the appellate authority. 10. In such a situation, I am of the view that the courts below have substantially erred in law in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings taken against the plaintiff and in decreeing the suit. I may also observe that the jurisdiction of the court in such a situation is limited to seeing whether any mandatory rule or provision has been violated and in seeing whether the rules of natural justice have been violated. The court has no wide jurisdiction as such and is not entitled to decide whether on the materials the plaintiff could have been punished. Tested from that angle, it is clear that no case has been made out by the plaintiff for interference by the Civil court. 11. The court has no wide jurisdiction as such and is not entitled to decide whether on the materials the plaintiff could have been punished. Tested from that angle, it is clear that no case has been made out by the plaintiff for interference by the Civil court. 11. I am also of the view that the plaintiff cannot successfully challenge the order passed in appeal by the Governor. The appellate order was only one of confirmation. The order clearly shows that on a reference to all the relevant materials, the appellate authority is satisfied that there was no ground to interfere with the decision of the original authority. The lower appellate court has purported to rely on the Kerala Civil Services (CC & A) Rules to find that the appellate order does not satisfy the requirements of R.31(2) of that Rules. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal is not under the CC & A Rules but under the Kerala Public Service Commission (Composition and Conditions of Service of Members and Staff) Regulation. It is submitted that the CC and A Rules have no application and that the appeal is under Regulation.12 and the appellate authority is as specified under Annexure III of the Regulation and in a case where the appellate authority was confirming the order of the original authority, no separate or elaborate reasons need be given by the appellate authority for dismissing the appeal. I am inclined to agree with this submission of learned counsel for the appellant, though I do not think it necessary to pronounce finally on this aspect in this Second Appeal. 12. In the light of my conclusions as above, it has to be held that the courts below have substantially erred in law in interfering with the disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff and in. granting the declaration sought for by him. I may also notice that on the findings now rendered by the courts below, assuming them to be correct, the courts below could not have done anything other than directing the defendants to conduct a proper enquiry on the charges framed against the plaintiff. The grant of relief without directing a fresh enquiry has also to be held to be illegal and outside the jurisdiction of the courts in the light of the finding rendered by them. The grant of relief without directing a fresh enquiry has also to be held to be illegal and outside the jurisdiction of the courts in the light of the finding rendered by them. On that ground also the decree cannot be sustained. I therefore allow this second Appeal, and setting aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below dismiss the suit. In the circumstances of the case I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.