Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- 1. This regular second appeal at the instance of the defendants is directed against concurrent findings of the two courts below passed vide judgments and decrees dated 9.10.1996 and 30.11.1998, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Jaswinder Singh filed against the defendants, appellants herein, seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that order Endst. No. 3149-50 dated 11.4.94 vide which services of the plaintiff had been terminated was illegal, void, arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice, was decreed by the lower court and the findings thereof, were further affirmed in appeal by the first appellate court. 2. Plaintiff-respondent Jaswinder Singh joined the duties with the defendants in 1981 as a jeep driver. The plaintiff was served with a charge sheet on 5.8.1991 to which he submitted his detailed reply, which was considered unsatisfactory and regular departmental inquiry was conducted against him. 3. Genesis of the issuance of charge sheet to the plaintiff-respondent is the alleged misbehaviour of the respondent-plaintiff with one Shri Manmohan Singh, Assistant Director, Horticulture of the Department posted at Bathinda. 4. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues were drawn up for adjudication:-- "1. Whether the order Ednst. No. 3149-50 dated 11.4.94 is illegal, null and void, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for and is also entitled to all the consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% p.a.? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Relief." 5. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the defendants did not press issues No. 3 and 4 nor did they produce any evidence in support of these issues. Therefore, only two issues, viz., issues No. 1 and 2 remained to be adjudicated and the same being inter-connected, were taken up together and were decided accordingly. 6. In support of his claim, plaintiff Jaswinder Singh himself had entered the witness box and had tendered documents i.e. order dated 11.4.1994 (Ex.P1), charge sheet (Ex.P2), inquiry report (Ex.P3) and other relevant documents, viz., Ex.P4 to P8 and Ex.PX, Ex.PY and Ex.PZ. 6. In support of his claim, plaintiff Jaswinder Singh himself had entered the witness box and had tendered documents i.e. order dated 11.4.1994 (Ex.P1), charge sheet (Ex.P2), inquiry report (Ex.P3) and other relevant documents, viz., Ex.P4 to P8 and Ex.PX, Ex.PY and Ex.PZ. Mentioned in brief, the gravamen of allegations of the plaintiff in the plaint is that grave injustice has been caused to him by action of the defendants by violating the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as all the actions of the defendants amounted to infringement of such rights. According to the plaintiff, he was not supplied copy of the inquiry report; the punishment order is cryptic and non-speaking and had been passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing; Shri Manmohan Singh was allowed to interfere in the inquiry proceedings when his name did not even figure in the list of witnesses; said Manmohan Singh was allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff in divergence with the established procedure; the plaintiff was not called upon to seek assistance of any of his colleague as enshrined under Rule 8(3) of the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970 (in short the Rules); the inquiry officer did not make compliance of Rule 8(18) of the aforesaid Rules and did not pass an order in consonance with requirement of said Rule. The charge sheet was alleged to be vague and not specific. 7. In defence, the defendants tendered the inquiry file (Ex.D1) and did not lead any other evidence. 8. The defendants raised an objection regarding maintainability of the civil suit claiming that the plaintiff had not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority under Rule 16 of the Rules but as has been explained earlier, the civil suit was decided only qua issues No. 1 & 2 and this objection subsisted no more. 9. The defendants controverted the assertions of the plaintiff and stated in their reply that copy of the inquiry report as also show cause notice were given to the plaintiff on 11.2.1994. As mentioned earlier, the defendants did not produce any witness or evidence except the inquiry file and thus there is nothing on record to sustain this plea of theirs. It was further asserted by the defendants that the inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and the plaintiff was given due opportunity to defend himself. As mentioned earlier, the defendants did not produce any witness or evidence except the inquiry file and thus there is nothing on record to sustain this plea of theirs. It was further asserted by the defendants that the inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and the plaintiff was given due opportunity to defend himself. The defendants had further asserted validity of the impugned orders. 10. The trial court after hearing counsel for the parties, perusing the record and appreciating the evidence led by the parties, held all the issues raised by the parties, in favour of the plaintiff. 11. The ground of challenge before the first appellate court was that the inquiry report (Ex.P3) as well as the consequential order (Ex.P2) made thereon, were quite proper, legal and justified and that the plaintiff was granted adequate opportunity to defend himself and the relevant provisions of law enacted through Rules 8 and 9 of the 1970 Rules were duly complied with. Setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below was sought. 12. The lower court as also the first appellate court have discussed oral as well as documentary evidence, as also the provisions of law viz., the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970 with particular reference to Rule 8(3) of the Rules (which stipulates that the punishing authority shall draw the substance of the imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges which are to be delivered to the delinquent official along with list of documents and witnesses). It is established on record by the two courts below that requisite relevant procedure was not followed by the inquiry officer. 13. Another glaring irregularity in the conduct of inquiry, as has been concurrently held by the two courts below, is non-observance of mandate enshrined in Rule 8(14) of the 1970 Rules which requires that on the date fixed for inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be established, shall be produced by or on behalf of the punishing authority and the witnesses shall be examined first by the presenting officer and then are to be cross-examined by and on behalf of the government employee and only then his cross examination, if any, allowed, was to be recorded. By reference to pages 57 to 67 of the inquiry report (Ex.D1), it has been held by the two courts below that the inquiry officer Shri Jagtar Singh firstly examined Krishan Lal Bansal, Senior Assistant (Accounts) and Birbal Singh, Senior Clerk in the form of questions and answers. All the questions were in leading form and thereafter they were allowed to be cross examined by plaintiff Jaswinder Singh. Surprisingly the said witness Krishan Lal Bansal was allowed to be cross examined by complainant Manmohan Singh which is in utter disregard to the law and such a procedure is nowhere prescribed in law. 14. The admitted facts which have been concurrently held in favour of the plaintiff by the two courts below on appreciation of evidence on record and on hearing respective counsel for the parties, which could neither be assailed by Counsel for the appellants, are to the following effect:-- "1. The plaintiff was not supplied copy of the inquiry report; 2. The order of dismissal of the plaintiff from service vide order of 11.4.1994 is cryptic and non-speaking; 3. No opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the plaintiff which is violative of principles of natural justice; 4. The plaintiff was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and no opportunity was given to produce the defence witnesses; 5. The plaintiff was not called upon to produce the list of defence witnesses which is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the rules; 6. Notice under Section 80 CPC served by the plaintiff has gone unnoticed; 7. The plaintiff was not asked to seek assistance of a co-employee during the inquiry proceedings which was mandatory for the inquiry officer to do so and thus there is violation of Section 8(8) of the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970; and, 8. The inquiry was not conducted in consonance with Rule 8 (11) of the 1970 Rules and no order thereunder was passed." 15. Hearing has been provided to Counsel for the parties while perusing the records. 16. The solitary contention of Counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below, relying upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dr. Hearing has been provided to Counsel for the parties while perusing the records. 16. The solitary contention of Counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below, relying upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy, 1996(3) SCT 410, is that even if the punishment order is found to be illegal on account of defect in the inquiry, the court should not direct reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Relying upon this judgment, it is further contended by Counsel for the appellants that proper course for the courts, was to direct the authority to proceed with the inquiry afresh in accordance with law from the stage, the defect erupted. 17. Perusal of the judgments of the two courts below as also the records, reveal that the inquiry conducted against the plaintiff is not only faulty but even the procedure adopted for conducting the inquiry proceedings is not only amazing but is unheard of in-service jurisprudence. Admittedly, strict rules of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are not applicable in departmental inquiry proceedings but what is essentially required is observance of principles of natural justice. In this case, these principles have been blown to the winds more than once and rather have been followed more in breach. Besides, the inquiry officer has not cared to follow the statutory provisions in the form of Rules 8(3) and 8(14) contained in the 1970 Rules. 18. Further, arbitrariness and bias of the Enquiry Officer is writ large from the very fact that he had allowed the complainant in the case, viz, Manmohan Singh, to conduct examination of the delinquent official. 19. The impugned judgments rendered by the two courts below are not only elaborate but have taken care of all the issues raised by the parties. 20. At this stage, it would be of avail to make a mention of order dated 28.1.2015 passed by this Court. The appellant-defendants were afforded last opportunity on 8.11.2006 to frame substantial questions of law needing determination by this Court. Since then, the matter is being adjourned time and again till we reached the date as 15.3.2015. On this day, arguments were finally heard and the matter was reserved for pronouncement of orders but even then the appellants did not file substantial questions of law despite repeated asking of this Court. Since then, the matter is being adjourned time and again till we reached the date as 15.3.2015. On this day, arguments were finally heard and the matter was reserved for pronouncement of orders but even then the appellants did not file substantial questions of law despite repeated asking of this Court. It appears that the appellants are handicapped in framing substantial questions of law, rather, from the conduct of the appellants, it seems that no question of law arises for adjudication. No question of law, much less substantial one, arises for determination in this regular second appeal. 21. Dismissed. Interim order dated 14.9.2000 staying operation of the impugned judgments shall stand vacated automatically. 22. Since the plaintiff-respondent had entered service of the appellant-defendants in the year 1981 and by now he might have reached the age of superannuation, it will not be feasible to order his reinstatement, however, he will be entitled to all the consequential benefits along with arrears of pay and pensionary benefits along with simple interest @ 12% per annum as if he was in the service of the appellant-defendants on the date of his superannuation.