Rajasthan High Court
Home Secretary Home Deptt And Or vs Girdhari Lal on 4 April, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 58/1999
1. Home Secretary, Home Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur City, Jaipur Through
Circle Officer, Circle Sadar, Jaipur City, Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
Girdharilal S/o Bhura Ram, Village Gadhgoni, Tehsil Srimadhopur
Distt. Sikar
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Prakash Kumar, Adv. on
behalf of Mr. Rupin Kala, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C. P. Sharma, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment 04/04/2024
This Civil second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been
filed by the defendants-appellants(for short 'the defendants')
against the judgment dated 17.01.1998 passed by the Additional
District & Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur(for short 'the
appellate Court') in Civil Regular Appeal No.72/96, whereby the
appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment
and decree dated 25.07.1996 passed by the Additional Civil
Judge(JD) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the trial court'), in
Civil Suit No.963/95 (1195-91) decreeing the respondent-
plaintiff's (for short 'the plaintiff') suit for declaration in his favour.
The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaring the office order
dated 04.04.1991 vide which the plaintiff was dismissed from
(2 of 5) [CSA-58/1999]
service as void ab initio and being against the principle of natural
justice.
Brief facts of the case, succinctly stated, are that the plaintiff
was appointed as a constable vide order No.8449 dated 08.07.79.
He was regularized on the said post vide order dated 24.01.86.
Vide memorandum dated 21.05.90, the plaintiff was charge-
sheeted under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil
Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 read with
Section 7 of Police Act. Vide order dated 04.04.91 the plaintiff
was held guilty and dismissed from service. The plaintiff
challenged the said order by way of filing civil suit.
The defendants filed the written statement and mentioned
that enquiry initiated against the plaintiff was in accordance with
law. Proper opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiff. The
defendants also mentioned that the Civil court had no jurisdiction
to entertain the suit because case pertained to service nature. So,
the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed.
The trial court framed the following issues on the basis of
pleadings of both the parties:-
"(1) Whether the departmental enquiry initiated
against the plaintiff, charge-sheet and termination
order No. 11654-57 dated 04.04.1991 of the
plaintiff are illegal, void ab-initio, without authority
and against the principle of natural justice?
(2) Whether no cause of action accrued to the
plaintiff?
(3) Whether suit of plaintiff is premature?
(4) Relief?"
(3 of 5) [CSA-58/1999]
To prove his case, the plaintiff got himself examined and to
prove their case, the defendants examined Hari Shrivastava,
Officer In-charge as DW-1.
After hearing both the parties, the trial court decreed the
plaintiff's suit vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.1996 and
declared the termination order No.11654-57 dated 04.04.91 as
illegal, unlawful and being contrary to the principles of natural
justice was null and void and held the plaintiff entitled to continue
in the service of the defendants and to get all the monetary and
other benefits, which he would have got had he been in service.
The defendants challenged the said judgment and decree dated
25.07.1996 by filing an appeal before the appellate court. The
Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.01.1998 dismissed the
appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and
decree dated 25.07.1996 passed by the trial court.
Now, the defendants by way of second appeal, have
challenged the judgment dated 17.01.1998 passed by the
Appellate Court as also the judgment and decree dated
25.09.1996 passed by the trial court.
This court on 27.07.2000 while admitting the appeal framed
the following substantial question of Law:-
"Whether both the courts below have committed
substantial error of law in reinstating the delinquent,
on ground of denial of reasonable opportunity of
hearing to him, or both the courts below ought to
have passed an appropriate order, directing the
discipline authority, to give reasonable opportunity of
(4 of 5) [CSA-58/1999]
hearing to the delinquent and proceed to take
disciplinary action, from the stage, from where the
opportunity of hearing was denied to him?"
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial
Court had committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by the
plaintiff and the first appellate court has also committed an error
in dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants and affirming the
judgment and decree passed by by the trial court. Learned
counsel for the defendants further submits that enquiry initiated
under Rule 16 of CCA is an independent proceeding. The present
case was purely a service matter and the civil court had no
jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned counsel for the defendants also
submits that criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry are
not on the same footing. Proper opportunity of hearing was given
to the plaintiff and the defendants had also supplied a copy of the
enquiry report. The plaintiff was heard before passing the
termination order. So, the judgment passed by both the courts
below be set-aside.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted
that the trial court while appreciating the evidences led by both
the parties clearly mentioned that in departmental enquiry,
principle of natural justice was violated. No proper opportunity of
hearing was given to the plaintiff and copy of the enquiry report
was not supplied to him before passing the termination order. So,
the judgments passed by both the courts below do not require any
interference. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff be
dismissed.
(5 of 5) [CSA-58/1999]
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the
defendants.
While decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff, the trial court
in its judgment clearly mentioned that principle of natural justice
was violated by the defendants. No proper opportunity of hearing
was given to the plaintiff. The trial court in its judgment also
clearly mentioned that before dismissal from the service, the
plaintiff was not heard. He was not supplied a copy of the enquiry
report. So, in my considered opinion, the present appeal being
devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed
accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/06
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
