HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No v. Ishwari Prasad Bairwa S/o Sh. Radheylal, Aged About 54 Years, Ex- Conductor Rajasthan State

: Mr. V. P. Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankul Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 25/07/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 passed by Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No.03/2024, whereby the appeal filed by the defendants has been partly dismissed and while setting aside the finding of Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in the judgment dated 13.07.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.89/2018 (20/2015) on issue No.2, partly allowed the [2025:RJ-JP:27824] (2 of 6) [CSA-121/2025] appeal and decreed the respondent-plaintiff’s (for short ‘the plaintiff’) suit for declaration. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants to declare the termination order dated

29.11.2013 and appeal order dated 11.03.2014 as null and void in plaint. Plaintiff mentioned in the suit that plaintiff was appointed as a conductor in Corporation. From the date of his appointment, the plaintiff was continuously discharging his duties honestly and diligently and there was no complaint of whatsoever nature in relation to the plaintiff’s work. It was further submitted that on

26.01.2012, when the plaintiff was discharging his duties as a Conductor on vehicle No.0178 at Barmer Pali route and it was alleged that on inspection 14 passengers were found without ticket from whom the plaintiff had already collected fare and did not issue ticket to them. On this count, charge-sheet No.1752 dated 21.02.2012 was issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that the said charge levelled upon him was false. In fact on 26.01.2012 when he was discharging his duties on vehicle No.0178 at Barmer Pali route, the vigilance team inspecting the vehicle 4 Kms before Sivana, where a taxi was unlawfully parked due to a mechanical default. The passengers traveling in the taxi stood in the middle of the road and got stopped the vehicle forcefully. When the plaintiff was preventing the taxi passengers to enter into the bus, the vigilance team came there and the taxi passengers were considered as the bus passengers. The plaintiff also stated that in the bus none of the passenger was traveling without ticket but without considering the same, Charge-sheet was issued to him and no document was provided. Resultantly, the [2025:RJ-JP:27824] (3 of 6) [CSA-121/2025] plaintiff had to file reply without getting the document(s). Enquiry officer was appointed who recorded the statement of the plaintiff in the absence of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. The plaintiff was also not provided an opportunity to produce the witness in evidence and to adduce the document. Principles of natural justice was violated during enquiry and termination order dated

29.11.2013 was passed against him. He preferred a departmental appeal but the same was also dismissed without hearing the plaintiff vide order dated 11.03.2014. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff had not discharged his duty honestly. As many as 20 cases of misconduct were pending against him and on 26.01.2012, he was carrying 14 passengers without tickets. During enquiry as well as appeal proceeding, principles of natural justice was followed. Civil court had no jurisdiction to try it only and Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to try the case. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k oknh ds fo:) ikfjr lsoki`Fkd vkns’k dzekad 1317 fnukad 29-11-13 o vihy fujLrhdj.k vkns’k dzekad 185 fnukad 11-03-14 dks voS/k o izkd`frd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds foijhr gksus ds vk/kkj ij fujLr ? kksf"kr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS \ 2- vk;k oknh izfroknhx.k dh lsok esa yxkrkj fcuk fdlh vojks/k ds leLr osru ,oa lsok laca/kh ykHkks lfgr cuk jgus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ [2025:RJ-JP:27824] (4 of 6) [CSA-121/2025] 3- vk;k oknh }kjk mBk;k x;k fookn vkS|ksfxd fookn dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS vkSj bl dkj.k bl U;k;ky; dks okn dh lquokbZ dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gS \ 4- vuqrks"k \ To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Ishwari Prasad Bairwa. Defendants had not adduced any evidence. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.07.2022 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and declared the termination order dated 29.11.2013 as well as appeal dismissal order dated 11.03.2014 as null and void and directed the defendants that plaintiff be allowed to continue in the corporation’s service with all consequential benefits and the amount due from the date of termination till reinstatement be also paid to him. Defendants challenged the said judgment dated 13.07.2022 by way of first appeal. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 partly dismissed the appeal and while setting aside the finding of the trial court on issue No.2, partly allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that trial court as well as appellate court had committed error in decreeing the suit and partially allowing the appeal. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because only Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to try the suit. He also stated that principles of natural justice was also followed during enquiry proceeding. So, judgment and decree dated 13.07.2022 passed by the trial court as well as judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 passed by the appellate court [2025:RJ-JP:27824] (5 of 6) [CSA-121/2025] deserve to be set aside and appeal filed by the defendants be admitted on the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that trial court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit and the appellate court has also not committed any error in partially allowing the appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that in departmental enquiry, principles of natural justice was not followed. Document was not provided to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that principles of natural justice was violated and on account of infringement of the civil right, the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. So, the appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa reported in (2009) 4 SCC 299. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that while conducting the enquiry, principles of natural justice was violated. So, trial court had not committed any error in setting aside the termination order as well as dismissal of the appeal order and appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to get the monetary benefits which were due prior to issuance of the termination and [2025:RJ-JP:27824] (6 of 6) [CSA-121/2025] after reinstatement. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Jatin /34 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J