Rajasthan High Court
R.S.R.T.C vs Nawal Kishore Gupta on 23 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 454/1999
1. RSRTC Through its General Manager, Parivahan Marg,
Jaipur
2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Ajmer
3. The Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Ajmer
----Appellants
Versus
Nawal Kishore Gupta S/o Shri Chatturbhuj Gupta,
Ex-Conductor, Ajmer Depot, Ajmer, R/o House No. 944/20,
Chatai Mohalla, Kesar Ganj, Ajmer
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Manjeet Kaur, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.C. Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 16/03/2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : March 23rd, 2022
BY THE COURT:
1. Appellant-defendant Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation (hereinafter referred as "RSRTC") has preferred this
second appeal under Section 100 CPC, assailing judgment and
decree dated 29.1.1999 in Appeal No.291/1986 passed by
Additional District Judge, No.2, Ajmer affirming the judgment and
decree dated 13.12.1985 passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate
Ajmer City (East) in Civil Suit No.178/1982 whereby while
termination order of respondent plaintiff (hereinafter "plaintiff")
was declared as null and void.
2. The facts of case are that plaintiff was appointed on the post
of Conductor on permanent basis but on 17-6-1982 while he was
on duty at Bus No.1065, the vehicle was inspected by the
(2 of 5) [CSA-454/1999]
vigilance squad of RSRTC and he was booked for offences of
carrying three passengers without issuing tickets, although fair
had already been received and pocketed by him. On the criminal
charges, he was tried before the Judicial Magistrate (Traffic) Ajmer
who punished the plaintiff for ten days simple imprisonment. On
the basis of his conviction, he was terminated on 17-6-1982 itself.
Copy of order was not provided and services of plaintiff were
terminated by defendant RSRTC without providing opportunity of
hearing and in violation of Order 35 of the Standing Orders of
RSRTC. Plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, on 18-6-1982
under apprehension that he may be removed and prayed for
temporary injunction, if he has been terminated, thus challenging
termination order dated 17-6-1982 alleging inter alia that his
termination is stigmatic and he has been terminated from service
without conducting any enquiry as also without giving any
opportunity of hearing. Plaintiff prayed for declaring his
termination order as illegal and void and claimed for permanent
injunction.
3. The RSRTC filed written statement contending that plaintiff
was not on duty while he filed suit nor he was permanent
employee. On inspection by the vigilance team, he was found
guilty as three passengers were found without tickets and he was
punished for imprisonment of ten days simple imprisonment.
Other objections as to the jurisdiction of Civil Court were also
raised.
4. The trial Court settled issues and recorded evidence of both
parties. Plaintiff appeared as witness and produced documents to
prove that his termination was stigmatic and was passed without
(3 of 5) [CSA-454/1999]
conducting enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing,
therefore, termination is ex facie illegal and in violation to
principles of natural justice. No evidence was adduced in rebuttal
by RSRTC.
5. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record
concluded that the termination of plaintiff from service is not
simpliciter, but because of punishment. The trial Court observed
that since termination of plaintiff is stigmatic and no enquiry was
conducted, no opportunity of hearing was given, no principle of
natural justice was followed, thus, impugned termination order is
illegal and void. Accordingly, the trial Court allowed plaintiff's suit
declaring the termination order as illegal and void.
6. Defendants preferred first appeal against judgment and
decree of trial Court, which was dismissed by Appellate Court vide
judgment dated 29.1.1999 and judgment of trial court was
affirmed, hence, the RSRTC is in second appeal.
7. Learned counsel for appellant-defendant has argued that
plaintiff was not a permanent employee, but was a daily rated
employee, therefore, no enquiry was necessary and no
termination order was challenged in the suit, however, courts
below have declared the termination order as void. He has argued
that civil court was not having jurisdiction to try and decided the
suit.
Counsel for defendant RSRTC has also submitted that after
dismissing appeal by first appellate court the respondent plaintiff
was reinstated in service on 2-9-1999, subject to decision of
appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiff has also retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation.
(4 of 5) [CSA-454/1999]
8. This court on 20-7-2006 framed the substantial question of
law "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the present
suit or not?".
9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned
judgment passed by the trial court as affirmed by the first
appellate court, as also record of the case.
10. As far as nature of termination as simpliciter or stigmatic is
concerned, both Courts have concurrently held on the strength of
oral or documentary evidence that the termination was stigmatic.
The fact finding of two courts below are based on appreciation of
evidence and no perversity has been pointed out in such fact
findings, so as to give rise any question of law much less
substantial question of law.
11. As far as the substantial question of law that civil court has
jurisdiction to entertain the suit is concerned, such issue has been
considered and decided by the Apex Court in Rajasthan State
Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa
[(2009)4 SCC 299] and it has been held that where no enquiry
has been conducted, there would be violation statutory
Regulations as also right of equality as contained in Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. In such a situation a civil suit will be
maintainable for the purpose of declaration that termination of
service was illegal and consequences flowing therefrom.
Therefore, the question of law relating to jurisdiction of civil court
to entertain and true the civil suit is answered in negative.
12. There is no other substantial question of law as raised by
appellant defendant. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in case of
(5 of 5) [CSA-454/1999]
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar
[(1999)3 SCC 722] that question of law which has already been
decided by a larger Bench of the High Court concerned, or by the
Privy Council, or by the Federal Court or by the Supreme Court,
mere wrong application on facts of a particular case does not
create another substantial question of law. In such view of the
matter there is no substantial question of law in instant matter.
13. In case of Umerkhan Vs. Bismillabi [(2011)9 SCC 684]
Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded that if a second appeal is
admitted on substantial question of law, while hearing second
appeal finally, can re-frame substantial question of law or can
frame substantial question of law afresh or even can hold that no
substantial question of law involved, but the High Court cannot
exercise its jurisdiction of Section 100 CPC without formulating
substantial question of law.
14. In the present case substantial question of law as framed has
been considered and this court is of the opinion that same ad
already been answered in Bal Mukund Bairwa (supra) and all other
points are essentially either question of facts or have already been
settled by way of judicial precedents. Thus, in this second appeal,
no substantial question of law involved, and the second appeal is
bereft of merits. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.
15. Any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
16. Record of courts below be sent back forthwith.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/74
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
