Rajasthan High Court
Virdhi Chand Yadav Thr Lr vs State Or Raj Thr Secretary on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 306/2017
1. Virdhi Chand Yadav S/o Mai Ram, R/o E-4/385, Jai Narain
Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Retired Dy. Inspector General,
Registration And Stamps, Hanumangarh Deceased
2. Smt. Murti Devi W/o Late Sh. Virdhi Chand Yadav S/o Mai
Ram, R/o E-4/385, Jai Narain Vyas Colony, Bikaner,
Retired Dy. Inspector General, Registration And Stamps,
Hanumangarh
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Personnel K-3
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.K. Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
06/05/2022
The appellant- plaintiff (hereafter `the plaintiff') has
preferred this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree
dated 28-1-2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No.17,
Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in first appeal No.375/2014 dismissing
appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 24-11-2006
passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur
city, Jaipur in civil suit No.362/2004 whereby and whereunder suit
has been dismissed and upheld the order dated 11-3-2002 passed
under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996
(hereafter `Pension Rules') whereby 25% pension of the plaintiff
was withheld permanently.
(2 of 5) [CSA-306/2017]
2. Facts as culled out from the record are that a disciplinary
proceeding was initiated against the plaintiff vide order dated 21-
11-1999 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereafter `the
CCA Rules'). Charge sheet was issued that while the delinquent
was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Colonization, Chhatargarh.
He flouting orders of superior officers allotted agricultural land to
agriculturists in lieu of their acquired agricultural land, while the
Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner vide letter dated 10-3-1987
ordered that land of 11 agriculturists in village Surasar Tehsil and
District Bikaner was acquired by forest department with the help
of local police for the purpose of plantation and charagah. In lieu
of acquired land a list of such agriculturists was to be prepared
and only the report was to be sent by the delinquent. But the
delinquent instead of sending the report, on 2-4-1987 allotted
land to agriculturists and further directed Tehsildar Colonization
Poogal to send compliance report. It was alleged that according to
order dated 29-8-1983 issued by the Government of Rajasthan
Finance (Colonization) department the delinquent was not
competent to allot the land. It was alleged that he intentionally
allot land to agriculturists to give them undue benefits.
The delinquent filed reply to the charge sheet and submitted
that the order dated 29-8-1983 was never sent to him. Vide order
dated 1-6-1991 Additional Commissioner (First) was appointed as
Enquiry Officer, thereafter vide order dated 7-7-1994 Divisional
Commissioner Bikaner was appointed Enqiry Officer. Vide enquiry
report dated 12-8-1996 all charges were found proved against
delinquent.
(3 of 5) [CSA-306/2017]
The plaintiff retired on 31-12-1991 from the post of Dy.
Inspector General Registration and Stamps, Hanumangarh. He
filed detailed representation against the enquiry report and after
providing opportunity of hearing, vide impugned order dated 11-3-
2002 the punishment was imposed against the plaintiff for
stoppage of 25% of his pension permanently. Hence he filed the
present civil suit for permanent injunction.
2. Defendants filed written statement and stated that on the
basis of available record charge sheet was issued. The delinquent
being government servant caused financial loss to government,
therefore, the department was entitled to initiate the enquiry
proceedings. The delinquent has wrongly allotted land to
agriculturists in lieu of their land acquired by forest department for
the purpose of plantation and charagah. The delinquent was
required only to send report of agriculturists, instead he allotted
land to them. The delinquent admitted the letter dated 10-3-1987,
but he acted contrary to the said letter. On proving charges
against the delinquent, after providing adequate opportunities to
the delinquent charges were found proved and the punishment
was imposed. It was prayed that suit be dismissed.
3. On basis of pleadings of parties, only 2 issues were framed,
one is whether the impugned order dated 11-3-2002 was null and
void?, and the other relief. Plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and
exhibited documents. In rebuttal one witness Dw.1 Jairam Meena
was examined and documents were exhibited. The trial court
considered the case on merits and found that there was no
infirmity in enquiry proceedings and the plaintiff was provided all
opportunities to plead his case and after considering evidence on
(4 of 5) [CSA-306/2017]
record found the charges proved against the plaintiff. On receipt of
enquiry report proper opportunity of hearing was provided and the
impugned order of punishment was passed. In view of decision of
issue No.1 against plaintiff, the suit was dismissed.
4. On filing first appeal, the appellate court found no illegality
or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court,
therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed
by the trial court. Hence, this second appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned
judgments passed by courts below.
6. Counsel for appellant has vehemently argued that impugned
judgments are liable to be quashed and set aside. However, he
failed to show any infirmity or illegality in the enquiry proceedings
conducted by the department.
7. Counsel for appellant could not point out any infirmity,
illegality or perversity in fact findings, which are based on
appreciation/ re-appreciation of evidence on record. In case of
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999)
3 SCC 722] and catena of other judgments passed in case of
Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [(2001) 9
SCC 521], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors.,
[(2019) 6 SCC 409], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [(1981) 2
SCC 414], Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [(2000) 1 SCC
434] and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors.,
[(2019) 10 SCC 595], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
categorically held that at the stage of second appeal, fact findings
recorded by two Courts below, based on appreciation of evidence,
should be honoured and must not be interfered with unless and
(5 of 5) [CSA-306/2017]
until there is some perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error which
leads manifest injustice. Once findings of fact recorded by two
Courts below are justified and based on due appreciation of
evidence, re-appreciation of evidence at the stage of second
appeal in order to draw a different conclusion is not warranted.
The scope of second appeal is confined to examine substantial
question of law, which are sine qua non to exercise powers under
Section 100 of CPC.
8. 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. It is a case where no substantial
question of law involved as there is no perversity or material
irregularity/ infirmity in the judgments passed by courts below.
Accordingly, the second appeal is not liable to succeed.
Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed.
9. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any,
also stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
