N.V.ANJARIA - (1.) THE appellant is Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, which has preferred the present appeal invoking section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to challenge the judgement and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1994 dated 15.10.1996, whereby the District Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.02.1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Una, in Regular Civil Suit No. 199 of 1992, whereby the trial court had set aside the order of dismissal dated 30.07.1992 passed against the respondent-original plaintiff.
(2.) IN the Civil Suit the aforesaid order of dismissal was challenged and was sought to be set aside. The order was passed pursuant to departmental enquiry against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was serving as Conductor in the appellant Corporation. It appears that while on duty as Conductor he found to have collected the amount of fare from group of passengers travelling in the bus on the route of Diu to Pune. When the bus was checked by the checking squad on 28.03.1989 it was noticed that 23 passengers were not issued tickets till Una bus stop though the amount of fare was collected and accordingly he has committed misconduct by misappropriating the fare. Charge sheet was issued with such allegation which culminated into order of dismissal. The present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law. "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, both the courts have substantially erred in law in holding that Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the respondent ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, both the courts have substantially erred in law in holding that departmental inquiry initiated against the respondent was vitiated as passengers were not examined in support of the charge levelled against the respondent ? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, both the courts have substantially erred in law in treating suit as an appeal from the findings in the departmental proceeding ? (4) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, both the courts have substantially erred in law in directing reinstatement of the respondent in service which amounts to specifically enforcing contract of service ?"
(3.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Nirav Sanghavi with learned advocate Mr. Apurva Jani with learned advocate Mr. Kishan Prajapati holding brief for learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the appellant. On behalf of the respondent none appeared though respondent was served.;