Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree rendered by learned Addl. District Judge Solan Himachal Pradesh on 28.2.2012 in Civil Appeal No. 27-S/13 of 2010. 2. “Key facts" necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff (herein after referred to as 'plaintiff' for brevity sake) filed a suit against the appellants/defendants (herein after referred to as 'defendants' for brevity sake). Plaintiff was appointed on 13.5.1988 as store keeper by defendant No. 1 and was posted in Army Public School Dagshai. His services were confirmed on 12.5.1990. He was promoted to the post of Store/Estate Supervisor with effect from 1.1.1993. One Shri Youdhvir Parmar filed a complaint against the plaintiff. Sh. M.S. Mohan also reported that he has misbehaved with him. Plaintiff filed reply to the allegations. He was put under suspension on 5.8.1995. A show cause notice was also issued to the plaintiff under para-34 of Army Public School Dagshai Standard Operating Procedure. He submitted reply to the same. However, fact of the matter is that plaintiff was terminated on 14.10.1995. Plaintiff submitted an appeal to the Chairman of Board of Governors. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Civil Writ Petition. The Court directed to decide the appeal. The appeal was rejected vide letter dated 20.11.1999. According to the plaintiff, defendants have not adopted the procedure prescribed under para-37 to 44 before terminating him. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. According to the defendants on a complaint received against the plaintiff on 10.6.1995, a show cause notice was issued to him on 27.6.1995. Plaintiff filed reply to the same, which was considered and he was terminated. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kasauli framed issues on 12.5.2008. Suit was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 3.9.2010 and letters dated 28.8.1995, 14.10.1995 and 20.11.1999 were declared illegal. Plaintiff was directed to be reinstated in service of the defendants. It was also declared that the defendants had no right to deprive the plaintiff of the consequential benefits. 5. Defendants preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3.9.2010 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Solan bearing appeal No. 27-S/13 of 2010. He dismissed the appeal on 28.2.2012, hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 6. The Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law No. 2 to 4, which are as under: “2. 5. Defendants preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3.9.2010 before the learned Addl. District Judge, Solan bearing appeal No. 27-S/13 of 2010. He dismissed the appeal on 28.2.2012, hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 6. The Regular Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law No. 2 to 4, which are as under: “2. Whether the appellate court has committed error of law apparent on the face of the record by misreading and not appreciating the oral and documentary evidence in its true and legal perspective thus resulting in error of law apparent on face of record. If so it’s effect? 3. Whether the appellate court has erred in law in misinterpreting and misconstruing EX D-1, Ex DW1/A, Ex DW1/B, Ex DW1/C and Ex DW1/D resulting in error of law apparent on face of record and thus arriving at wrong finding. If so it’s effect? 4. Whether the appellate court has erred in law in misinterpreted and misconstrued standard operating procedure especially para 34 to 44 and term of service contract executed by respondent. if so it’s effect?” 7. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate has vehemently argued on the basis of substantial questions of law, that both the courts below have not appreciated oral as well documentary evidence including paras 34 to 44 of the Standard Operating Procedure. 8. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 10. PW-1 Ashwani Kumar deposed that a show cause notice dated 28.8.1995 was issued to the plaintiff. He further testified that as per record, no notice was issued to the plaintiff before conducting enquiry and plaintiff was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which were produced by the defendants at the time of enquiry. According to him, as per record brought by him, there was nothing on record that any opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff to defend his case. He has produced copy of enquiry report Ext. PW-1/B. In his cross-examination, he stated that plaintiff filed reply to the show cause notice, which is mark X-1. 11. PW-3 Ravi Sood testified that the plaintiff was having good relations with the staff, teachers and students. However, the staff became jealous and intended to cause injury to the plaintiff. He has produced copy of enquiry report Ext. PW-1/B. In his cross-examination, he stated that plaintiff filed reply to the show cause notice, which is mark X-1. 11. PW-3 Ravi Sood testified that the plaintiff was having good relations with the staff, teachers and students. However, the staff became jealous and intended to cause injury to the plaintiff. According to him, at no given time, plaintiff had any dispute with Mr. Youdhvir Parmar and M.S. Mohan, since he was working as a Superintendent-cum-Accountant of the School. Plaintiff accordingly was removed from services in a wrong manner. He knows the plaintiff since 1991. 12. PW-4 V.K. Mehta deposed that he had remained Principal of the Army Public School Dagshai during 1989 to 1996. According to him, as per terms and conditions of service, in case any employee is to be removed from service, an inquiry is to be conducted after serving show cause notice to the aggrieved party and giving him opportunity to produce witnesses and cross-examine them. According to him, at no given time, he received any complaint against the plaintiff. Services of the plaintiff were terminated without any inquiry and he was not taken into confidence. Plaintiff was performing his duties satisfactorily. 13. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-5. He has reiterated the fact enumerated in the plaint. According to him, no dispute has taken place with Mr. Youdhvir Parmar. He has not used criminal force against Mr. Youdhvir Parmar. He denied that in the reply to show cause notice he has admitted that a quarrel has taken place with Mr. Youdhvir Parmar. He denied that on that date Mr. S. Katoch, Ms. A. Talwar, Ms. B. Sangwan, Ms. D. Kaur, Mr. V. Adhikari and Mr. M. Nair were present. 14. Mr. Satya Parkash has appeared as DW-1. According to him, during inquiry, plaintiff was suspended vide Ext. PW-5/F. Inquiry report is Ex. PW-1/B. After inquiry, a show cause notice was issued to him, to which he submitted a reply vide Ext. DW-1/A. However, since reply was not satisfactory, petitioner’s services were terminated. He deposed that there were no summons available on the file, issued to the persons who have deposed during the inquiry. He categorically admitted that inquiry was completed on two separate days i.e. 24.8.1995 and 25.8.1995. 15. DW-2 Satwant Singh deposed that the plaintiff was appointed as a Store Keeper and he was confirmed on 15.12.1990. He deposed that there were no summons available on the file, issued to the persons who have deposed during the inquiry. He categorically admitted that inquiry was completed on two separate days i.e. 24.8.1995 and 25.8.1995. 15. DW-2 Satwant Singh deposed that the plaintiff was appointed as a Store Keeper and he was confirmed on 15.12.1990. School issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff. Plaintiff did not reply to the same. Inquiry was initiated against him. All the witnesses were summoned by Board of Inquiry, which was conducted by the then Principal and plaintiff was also present. He was found guilty and thereafter his services were terminated on 14.10.1995. As per para-34, it was made clear in the termination order that in lieu of notice, three months’ pay from the date of serving the letter shall be paid to the plaintiff on obtaining clearance from the school. Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Chairman of the Board of Governors, which was rejected. He also admitted that the plaintiff has taken specific objection that provisions of clause 36 and 44 of the Standard Operating Procedure were not followed however, according to him, these provisions were not applicable. According to him, plaintiff was governed under paras-36 to 38 and 40 to 44 of the Standard Operating Procedure. 16. According to para 34 of the Standard Operating Procedure, during the service of employees, their services can be terminated by a notice in writing given by the management. Such termination could be done by Board of Administration when it is so in the interest of the School or on medical grounds or on grounds of retrenchment provided before terminating the services of confirmed employee, he or she shall be given a show cause notice explaining the reasons why his/her services were proposed to be terminated and giving adequate time and opportunity to submit his/her reply. The period of such notice is one calendar month or pay in lieu thereof in case of staff on probation and three calendar months for staff who have been confirmed. 17. Para-36 provides that if any employee is found guilty of any misconduct, unsatisfactory performance of duty or negligence in the performance of his or her duty, he shall be liable to disciplinary action at the discretion of the principal or managing committee. 18. 17. Para-36 provides that if any employee is found guilty of any misconduct, unsatisfactory performance of duty or negligence in the performance of his or her duty, he shall be liable to disciplinary action at the discretion of the principal or managing committee. 18. Plaintiff, in the instant case was charged with allegation of misconduct, dereliction and negligent in discharge of duties. 19. Para-44, provides the manner in which the inquiry is to be conducted against an employee. 20. In the instant case, the management committee had decided to constitute an inquiry committee. Plaintiff was put under suspension. Inquiry was conducted on 24.8.1995 and 25.8.1995. Inquiry report is Ext. PW-1/B. The show cause notice is Ext. PW-1/A. Reply filed by plaintiff is Ext. D-1/A. 21. According to para-44, no order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (e) to (g) of Rule/clause 38 could be made except after inquiry. When Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into truth of any imputation or misconduct or misbehaviour against any employee, it may itself inquire into or cause to be inquired into the truth thereof. Disciplinary Authority has to serve charge sheet upon the employee. He is to be given specific time to file reply. Disciplinary Authority after receipt of written statement, may proceed with the inquiry and appoint an inquiry officer. Inquiry Officer can appoint a Presenting Officer. All relevant documents pertaining to the charge are to be supplied to the inquiry officer by the disciplinary authority. The employee may also be assisted by another member. Inquiry Officer has to record evidence of all the witnesses whether against or for the employee and whose evidence appears to be relevant. Such evidence is to be taken down in writing in the presence and hearing of the employee. The witnesses are to be examined by the Presenting Officer. The employee may also cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter, employee is to be given an opportunity of making statement voluntarily and in case employee does not appear before inquiry officer on the appointed day, inquiry can be proceeded ex parte. On the conclusion of inquiry, report is to be forwarded by the inquiry officer to the disciplinary authority. However, in the instant case, procedure as discussed herein above and provided in para-44 has not been complied with. On the conclusion of inquiry, report is to be forwarded by the inquiry officer to the disciplinary authority. However, in the instant case, procedure as discussed herein above and provided in para-44 has not been complied with. Inquiry committee has taken into consideration statements of witnesses without permitting the plaintiff to cross-examine them. Moreover, plaintiff has not been issued any charge sheet. There is complete violation of the procedure prescribed under para-44. The plaintiff has been issued show cause notice after conducting inquiry, to which reply was filed. The same was not found satisfactory. In what manner it was not found satisfactory, has not been explained. Since, specific misconduct has been attributed to the plaintiff, para-34 was not applicable as argued by Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. However, disciplinary proceedings were to be conducted as per para-44 of the Standard Operating Procedure. Courts below have correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence, in view of the provisions of the Standard Operating Procedure. Substantial questions framed are accordingly answered. 22. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.