Gujarat State Road Trasnport Corporation & 1 ­ Defendants

1.0 Present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant herein­original plaintiff to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court ­learned Principal District Judge, Rajkot passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.50 of 1986 by which the learned Appellate Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondents herein­original defendants by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court ­learned Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Rajkot dated 8.5.1986 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1369 of 1985 by the learned trial Court has partly allowed the said suit quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the respondents herein­ disciplinary authority and interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and directing the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff on any other post where there are no monetary transactions or on the post of helper.

2.0 That the appellant herein­original plaintiff was serving as a Conductor with the respondents herein­original defendants ­Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him for committing misconduct of not issuing tickets though the fare was collected. In the departmental inquiry, the charge and misconduct alleged of misappropriation, dishonesty and not issuing tickets though the fare was collected came to be proved and thereafter the disciplinary authority passed an order dismissing him from service. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing him from service, the plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 1369 of 1985 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot for declaration and permanent injunction. That the suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement by submitting that order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority holding the misconduct and charge of dishonesty and misappropriation proved, is just and proper which is not required to be interfered with. It was further submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That the learned trial Court framed the issues and held that the punishment of order of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority is to harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct proved and therefore, the learned trial Court interfered with the order of punishment and decreed the suit quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal and directing the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff on any other post where there are no monetary transactions or on the post of helper.

2.1. That being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 8.5.1986 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Rajkot passed in Regular Civil Suit No.1369 of 1985, the respondents herein ­original defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1986 before the District Court, Rajkot and learned Appellate Court by impugned judgment and order has allowed the said appeal quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by holding that the Civil Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision of the competent authority in departmental inquiry except on question that there is breach of principles of natural justice or that it is a case of no evidence and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with and substitute the penalty of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The learned Appellate Court also held on merits that the competent authority was justified in imposing punishment of dismissal from service.

2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Rajkot dated 29.7.1987 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.85 of 1986, the appellant herein­original plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3.0 Shri D.M. Thakkar, learned advocate for Shri Y.M. Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant has made only one submission that the learned trial Court held that the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority was too harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct proved and consequently when the learned trial Court quashed and set aside order of dismissal and directed the defendants to reinstate the plaintiff on any other post where there are no monetary transactions or on the post of helper, the same was not required to be interfered by the learned Appellate Court. No other submissions have been made.

4.0 On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the original defendants that once the charge/ misconduct of dishonesty and misappropriation of not issuing tickets though the fare was collected came to be proved in the departmental inquiry, departmental inquiry was held to be legal and valid and the order of dismissal was passed, as rightly held by the learned Appellate Court the same was not required to be interfered with by the learned trial Court / Civil Court. It is submitted that as rightly held by the learned Appellate Court / Civil Court is not sitting as an appellate authority against the order passed by the disciplinary authority. It is submitted that even in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the past misconducts committed by the plaintiff which are of similar nature, as rightly observed by the learned Appellate Court only order by way of punishment can be passed is the order of dismissal. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Second Appeal.

5.0 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length and considered and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by both the Courts below as well as evidence on record. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the departmental inquiry which was initiated against the plaintiff and it is held to be legal and valid, the charge / misconduct of not issuing the tickets though the fare was collected i.e. misconduct of misappropriation came to be proved and thereafter order of dismissal has been passed by the disciplinary authority. The learned trial Court interfered with the order of dismissal imposed by the disciplinary authority solely on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the misconduct proved and consequently learned trial Court decreed the suit and quashed and set aside the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority and directed the respondents herein­original defendants to reinstate the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court by impugned judgment and order by holding that once the misconduct has been proved in departmental inquiry and when the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as if the Civil Court is siting as an appellate authority against the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the same can be set aside only on the ground that same is in breach of principles of natural justice and / or it is based on no evidence.

6.0 Learned advocate for the plaintiff is not in a position to satisfy the Court how the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court is erroneous and / or learned Appellate Court has committed any error and / or illegality in quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The learned advocate for the appellants­original plaintiffs is also not in a position to satisfy the Court how the Civil Court would have any jurisdiction to consider the question with respect to proportionality of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and / or to consider whether the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is just and disproportionate or not. Even this Court is also of the opinion that Civil Court has no such jurisdiction to consider the proportionality of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, once the misconduct of misappropriation etc. has been proved in a departmental inquiry which is held to be legal and valid. As rightly observed by the learned Appellate Court /Civil Court is not sitting as an appellate authority against the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. As rightly observed by the learned Appellate Court / Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority except on the ground that the same is in principles of natural justice and / or same is based on no evidence. The Civil Court has no other jurisdiction to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority once the misconduct is held to be proved in the departmental inquiry and departmental inquiry is held to be legal and valid.

7.0 Even otherwise, on merits also the learned trial Court was not justified in interfering with order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority when it was proved that the plaintiff has committed misconduct of misappropriation i.e. not issuing the tickets thought the fare was collected. It is also required to be noted that even in the past also the plaintiff has committed similar misconducts. Under the circumstances also, the learned trial Court was not justified in interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the competent authority and the same is rightly interfered with by the learned Appellate Court. No illegality has been committed by the learned Appellate Court to allow the appeal and quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. On the contrary, it appears that learned Appellate Court is absolutely justified in interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and quashing and setting aside the same.

8.0 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Second Appeal fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

“kaushik”.

sd/­ ( M. R. Shah, J. )