Judgment S. S. Saron, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab through secretary, Transport against the judgment and decree dated 27.7.1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar whereby the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent against the judgment and decree dated 6.8.1983 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Nawanshahr has been accepted and his suit has been decreed. 2. The plaintiff-respondent was working as a Conductor in the punjab Roadways Depot, Nawanshahr. During the course of his service, he was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet dated 24.10.1980 was served on him. In terms of the charges, it is alleged that on various dates i. e.18.8.1980, 10.8.1980, 29.6.1980, 2.7.1980, 2.10.1980 and again on 2.10.1980 he indulged in acts of embezzlement and embezzled Rs.17.20 and Rs.5.05. 3. The plaintiff was asked to file reply to the charge-sheet within seven days. The details of the charges were also submitted. After reply had been filed, a departmental inquiry was conducted in which the plaintiff participated. On completion of inquiry, the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahr issued a show cause notice on 24.3.1981 wherein it was recorded that the inquiry Officer appointed to inquire into the charges levelled against the plaintiff in the charge-sheet dated 24.10.1980 has submitted his report and a copy of the same was enclosed for information of the plaintiff. It was further indicted that apart from the present case against the plaintiff, he had committed misconduct and other irregularities on different occasions for which punishments as mentioned therein had been imposed. These showed that the conduct of the plaintiff had not been satisfactory and that he had not been performing his duties as provided under the law. The punishments mentioned were regarding stopping of increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 16.2.1978, two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 17.12.1979, one increment with cumulative effective vide order dated 1.7.1980 and two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 25.11.1980. Accordingly, on careful consideration of the report of the inquiry Officer, the General Manager was provisionally of the opinion that a penalty of removal from service and forfeiture of remaining pay of the suspension period should be imposed on him. Before taking action, the plaintiff was asked to show cause. After reply had been filed, the plaintiff was removed from service. Before taking action, the plaintiff was asked to show cause. After reply had been filed, the plaintiff was removed from service. The plaintiff accordingly filed the present suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 19.5.1981 passed by the general Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahr (defendant No.2) vide which the plaintiff was removed from service and the appellate order dated 16.2.1982 passed by the Director, State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh rejecting his appeal against the removal order were inoperative, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. It was alleged that on the basis of false complaints of the checking staff, the plaintiff was placed under suspension and charge-sheet, which was fake, defective and was not drawn in accordance with the rules, had resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff as he was handicapped for preparation of his statement of defence. It was further alleged that the charge-sheet was not accompanied by the copies of the complaints of the checking staff, which are the basis of the charge-sheet. 4. The plaintiff requested the General Manager for the supply of the complaints to enable him to submit his reply to the charge-sheet. However, the same were not supplied in spite of the requests. Therefore, he was gravely prejudiced in the preparation of his statement of defence and was handicapped in submitting his reply to the charge-sheet which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Besides, it is alleged that the General Manager, punjab Roadways, Nawanshahr without appreciating the facts stated by the plaintiff in his reply ordered an inquiry in a mechanical manner. The plaintiff in fact was not conversant with the procedure of inquiry proceedings and the charges levelled against him were of serious nature, so he requested the Inquiry Officer to allow him to avail the assistance of a co-worker in the conduct of the inquiry proceedings. The declining of request of the plaintiff to avail the assistance of a co-worker not only disregarded the mandatory provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (`rules for short) but also denied the plaintiff of a reasonable opportunity of defence. It is also alleged that the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry against the principles of natural justice and against the service rules, thus causing prejudice to the plaintiff. The Inquiry Officer acted more like a prosecutor than an impartial Inquiry Officer which vitiated the inquiry. It is also alleged that the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry against the principles of natural justice and against the service rules, thus causing prejudice to the plaintiff. The Inquiry Officer acted more like a prosecutor than an impartial Inquiry Officer which vitiated the inquiry. It was further alleged that on receipt of inquiry report, the General Manager issued a show cause notice in a mechanical manner proposing punishment of removal from service and forfeiture of remaining pay of the suspension period. The said show cause notice was defective as it did not indicate whether the General Manager agreed in toto with the findings of the Inquiry officer or not. Request was also made for supply of copies of the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the documents relied upon in the inquiry to enable him to reply to the show cause notice but the same were never supplied to the plaintiff which resulted in prejudice to him. The General manager without affording personal hearing and without appreciating the reply to the show cause notice, passed the order dated 19.5.1981 removing the plaintiff from service and ordering forfeiture of remaining pay for the suspension period. The said order, it is alleged, is based on no evidence, besides it is biased, illegal and cryptic, as also against the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of the Rules. 5. The appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Director, State transport, it is alleged was rejected in a perfunctory manner vide order dated 16.2.1982. Therefore, a decree for declaration for setting aside the order dated 19.5.1981 passed by the General Manager and the appellate order dated 16.2.1982 passed by the Director, State Transport was prayed for. 6. The defendants put in appearance and filed their written statement in which all the allegations as made in the plaint were denied. It was stated that the reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the plaintiff was duly considered, besides the plaintiff never requested the Inquiry Officer to allow him the services of a co-worker to defend himself. Moreover, copies of the statements were never demanded by the plaintiff. All the prosecution witnesses, it is stated, were examined in the presence of the plaintiff and he also cross-examined them. The inquiry, that was conducted, was in accordance with the rules and the Inquiry Officer acted in an impartial manner during the course of inquiry. Moreover, copies of the statements were never demanded by the plaintiff. All the prosecution witnesses, it is stated, were examined in the presence of the plaintiff and he also cross-examined them. The inquiry, that was conducted, was in accordance with the rules and the Inquiry Officer acted in an impartial manner during the course of inquiry. It is also stated that a proper show cause notice was served on the plaintiff by the punishing authority. However, he never requested for supplying him the copies of the statements of the witnesses. The plaintiff filed his replication in which the averments made in the written statement were denied. The learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:- "1. Whether, the impugned order dated 19.5.1981, of the general Manager, Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahr, and order of the Director, State Transport, Punjab dated 16.2.1982, are illegal, as alleged. . . . . OPP.2. Relief. " 7. After the parties had led their evidence, the learned Sub Judge Ist class, Nawanshahr vide his judgment and decree dated 6.8.1983 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent with costs. In appeal, however, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed in his favour and his appeal was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 27.7.1984. The said judgment and decree is assailed by the appellants-State of Punjab. Mr. G. S. Cheema, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, 8. Punjab appearing for the appellants contends that the learned lower appellate court gravely erred in setting aside the well merited and considered judgment and decree of the trial Court by taking into account the fact that the plaintiff-respondent had not been provided assistance of a co-worker. It is contended that the reliance placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in bhagat Ram V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 1983 (1) SLR 626, is wholly untenable as no prejudice had been caused to the plaintiff-respondent. It is submitted that in fact the question of prejudice was liable to be taken into consideration and merely because the services of a co-worker had not been provided by itself cannot be said that any prejudice had been caused to him. 9. In response, Mr. Rameshwar Sharma and Mr. It is submitted that in fact the question of prejudice was liable to be taken into consideration and merely because the services of a co-worker had not been provided by itself cannot be said that any prejudice had been caused to him. 9. In response, Mr. Rameshwar Sharma and Mr. Raghuvinder singh, Advocates learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent have contended that the prejudice had indeed been caused to the plaintiffrespondent inasmuch as he was prejudiced in leading his defence in the case. Besides, it is submitted that after the passing of the judgment and decree dated 27.7.1984 by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, the plaintiff had rejoined service and in the appeal filed by the State in this court, no stay was granted. Thereafter, it is stated that the plaintiff continued in service and has now retired from service in 2005. Therefore, it is contended on the strength of the observations made by this Court in State of punjab V/s. Gurdev Singh Erstwhile Conductor (RSA No.2389 of 1984), decided on 21.7.2004, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as at this stage after the plaintiff had retired, grave prejudice would be caused with regard to his service benefits and also the pensionary benefits. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned Additional District judge, Jalandhar vide her impugned judgment and decree noticed the contentions of the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that an application of the delinquent employee for seeking assistance of a co-employee was filed, which should have been allowed by the Inquiry Officer who should have adjourned the case as he wanted to avail the assistance of a co-employee in the defence of his case. However, the Inquiry Officer did not allow the application. Rather, he recorded the evidence of the department. 11. Accordingly, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in bhagat Ram V/s. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (supra ). Besides, it was observed that the department was represented by a Presenting Officer and, therefore, in the opinion of the lower appellate Court the Inquiry Officer should have allowed the application of the delinquent employee seeking assistance of a co-employee for his defence. It was observed that the report of the Inquiry Officer appeared to be highly technical and unsympathetic. Besides, it was observed that the department was represented by a Presenting Officer and, therefore, in the opinion of the lower appellate Court the Inquiry Officer should have allowed the application of the delinquent employee seeking assistance of a co-employee for his defence. It was observed that the report of the Inquiry Officer appeared to be highly technical and unsympathetic. The Inquiry Officer, it was observed, should have given full opportunity to the plaintiff to defend himself in the proceedings. As such the refusal of the inquiry Officer to adjourn the proceedings amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity. Accordingly, it was held that there was sufficient ground to vitiate the inquiry proceedings and the impugned order, which was passed in pursuance of the inquiry proceedings, was accordingly set aside. The application for seeking adjournment of the proceedings is available at page 177 of the inquiry file, according to which the delinquent employee on 3.12.1980, had submitted before the Inquiry Officer that he did not know the ways and procedures of the inquiry and as to how it was to be done. Besides, the allegations imputed to him were quite serious. Therefore, he felt that without the assistance of an Advocate or a co-worker, he would not be able to prove himself innocent. Therefore, it was submitted that he be allowed to engage a counsel or provided with the assistance of a co-worker for which he had earlier made a request but had not received any reply. Accordingly, it was prayed that the inquiry proceedings be adjourned so that he could engage a counsel or get the assistance of a co-worker for his defence in the inquiry. 12. In view of the said application, it is evident that the plaintiffrespondent had indeed sought the assistance of a co-worker. The learned counsel for the State, however, has submitted by making a reference to the inquiry file that in fact the delinquent employee had participated in the inquiry at all stages and he had cross-examined the witnesses. Therefore, he had fully understood the nature of the inquiry that was to be conducted and as to how he was to defend himself. As such, no prejudice has been caused to him. Therefore, he had fully understood the nature of the inquiry that was to be conducted and as to how he was to defend himself. As such, no prejudice has been caused to him. The learned State counsel has also placed reliance on the cases of dheru Ram V/s. The State of Punjab, 1994 (4) RSJ 395 and Ghanshyam Dass v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, 1998 (2) RSJ 73 (DB ). In terms of the said judgments, it has been held that ordinarily the Inquiry officer should give an opportunity to the delinquent employee to seek assistance of a co-employee. However, non-compliance with the said rule does not ipso facto result in the invalidation of the inquiry proceedings and order of punishment. In each such case, the court will have to examine the record of the case to find out whether the violation of the rules or principles of natural justice has caused prejudice to the delinquent and if it finds that the delinquent employee was not handicapped in defending himself without the assistance of a co-employee then the order of punishment will not be nullified. In case the Court finds that the violation of the rules and the principles of natural justice has prejudiced the defence, then the order of punishment is liable to be quashed. There is no dispute to the said proposition and merely because the services of a co-employee are not provided to a delinquent employee in the course of departmental proceedings would by itself not invalidate the inquiry proceedings and it is to be seen in the facts and circumstances of each case whether any prejudice has been caused to the delinquent employee in his defence. 13. In the case in hand, as has already been noticed, the plaintiffrespondent had moved an application for providing him the assistance of a counsel or a co-employee for his defence and he had stated that the same be given to him for his effective defence. In this regard, he had been earlier also been submitting applications. However, despite that the services of a coemployee were not given. In this regard, he had been earlier also been submitting applications. However, despite that the services of a coemployee were not given. This evidently violates the provisions of Rule 8 (8)of the Rules which reads as under:- "8 (8) The Government employee may take the assistance of any other 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 regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits. " 14. A perusal of the above rule shows that a government employee may take assistance of any other 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 regard to the circumstances of the case so permits. Therefore, where a delinquent employee had asked for the assistance of another government employee, he is liable to be provided one. Therefore, there has been an infraction of Rule 8 (8) of the Rules which vitiates the inquiry, in the case in hand, as the defence of the plaintiff has been prejudiced. In fact, the learned lower appellate Court itself has recorded that the approach of the Inquiry Officer appears to be highly technical and unsympathetic and he should have given full opportunity to the defendant to defend himself. Therefore, refusal of the Inquiry Officer to adjourn the proceedings amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity. In the circumstances, the lower appellate Court having recorded a finding of prejudice, the same does not call for any interference in regular second appeal especially when no question of law much less substantial question of law is shown to be involved. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.