- (1.) Present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1988 passed by the learned District Judge, Jind, whereby judgment and decree dated 29.03.1983 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jind has been set aside. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 - Parkash Narain Goyal filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction that order dated 09.11.1978 passed by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, order dated 05.05.1979 passed by Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India and order dated 08.05.1980 passed by the Managing Director are illegal, void, vague, against the facts and law. It was further prayed that the defendants may be restrained from effecting recovery from the salary of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.03.1983. However, appeal was allowed by the learned lower Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 12.09.1988. Hence, this regular second appeal.
(2.) At the time of filing of the appeal, no substantial question of law was framed nor mentioned in the grounds of appeal. However, the following substantial questions of law have been placed on record: 1.Whether the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to engage a Legal Practitioner as his Defence Assistant before the Inquiry Officer despite the fact that this was specifically prohibited by Regulation 58(8) of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 2. Whether the respondent/plaintiff could legally insist that he be represented by a Legal Practitioner before the Inquiry Officer even when the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority was not a Legal Practitioner 3. Whether it was incumbent upon the Inquiry Officer to permit the respondent/plaintiff to engage a Legal Practitioner although there was no special circumstances which warranted such permission, more so since he had over 2 weeks to arrange for the assistance of any other employee of the FCI to act as his Defence Assistant 4. Whether the Inquiry can be vitiated despite the fact that the prejudice to his defence was neither pleaded nor proved by the respondent/plaintiff before the Inquiry Officer, which is essential for vitiating the Inquiry in the light of recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard 5. Whether the respondent / plaintiff who did not insist before the Inquiry Officer to summon his remaining 2 DWs and himself closed his evidence after examining his 3 present DWs can now turn around and say that the remaining 2 DWs should also have been summoned by the Inquiry Officer and whether the inquiry can be vitiated on this ground
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;