The main legal point established in the judgment is that the violation of procedural provisions in disciplinary proceedings should be examined from the standpoint of prejudice, and if no prejudice is established, no interference is called for.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the Union of India against the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 18.11.2008 and the First Appellate Court dated 11.7.2013; by which the courts below have decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and directed his reinstatement as a Constable with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The courts below have set aside the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings directing respondent’s dismissal from service. The Order of the Disciplinary Authority is dated 31.12.1993. Respondent/plaintiff had unsuccessfully appealed against the order of the disciplinary authority before the appellate departmental authority and which appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide Order dated 4/5.5.1994. The charge against the respondent/plaintiff was that he along with constable R.S. Punia assaulted ASI T.C. Reddy, Post Commander whereby Sh. T.C. Reddy sustained injuries on his head and stomach. It has come out during the enquiry proceedings that the motive for the assault by the respondent/plaintiff along with constable R.S. Punia on ASI T.C. Reddy was that ASI T.C. Reddy had earlier reported that the respondent/plaintiff was sleeping on duty and which has resulted in disciplinary proceedings whereby a penalty of stopping of one increment was imposed on the respondent/plaintiff.

2. Two issues were argued before this Court. First was that whether the enquiry proceedings were against the principles of natural justice because documents along with the charge-sheet were not supplied to the respondent/plaintiff. The second issue which was argued was that the respondent/plaintiff was not provided with a defence assistant during the enquiry proceedings.

3. On the first issue concerned, both the courts below have held that the enquiry proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice because the documents are found not to have been supplied to the respondent/plaintiff.

4. The following two substantial questions of law are framed for disposal of this second appeal:

(i) Whether the courts below have committed a gross illegality and perversity in holding that the principles of natural justice are violated on account of non-supply of the documents in the enquiry proceedings although the respondent/plaintiff did not ask for the documents during the enquiry proceedings after inspecting the documents and has also failed to plead and prove any prejudice on account of non-supply of documents and thereby there cannot be violation of the principles of natural justice in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala and Others Vs. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364?

(ii) Whether the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to be given a defence assistant by the employer/Union of India although the enquiry proceedings are of the years 1993-94 and the rule requiring providing of a defence assistant came into existence only in 2001?

5. Taking the second question of law first, it is seen that admittedly the rule requiring providing a defence assistant came into existence only in the year 2001 and whereas the disciplinary proceedings in the present case are of the year 1993-1994. In fact, the disciplinary proceedings culminated by the Order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 31.12.1993 and really therefore issue is of defence assistant being provided in 1993. Once there is no rule requiring provision of defence assistant at the relevant point of time when enquiry was held, I do not think it is open to the respondent/plaintiff to argue that the defence assistant ought to have been provided by the appellant no.1/employer/Union of India. In fact, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff could not argue emphatically on this point realizing that the said rule requiring appointing of a defence assistant only came into existence in the year 2001 whereas the disc