- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The plaintiff was working as a cashier and committed a misconduct on account of which a charge-sheet was issued on the basis of which a domestic enquiry was initiated in which Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges stood proved against the plaintiff. Based on the said report, a show-cause notice was issued and thereafter, an order dated 25. 3. 1970 was passed for the removal of the plaintiff from the service of the Corporation. It transpires that the appellate authority also affirmed the order of removal.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration praying that a decree for declaration be issued holding that the order of the removal passed by the Regional Director, as affirmed by the appellate order, was illegal and mala fide and that the plaintiff continued to be in the service with full back wages. The plaintiff in the 'alternative also prayed for a decree for damages for wrongful removal from the services. The defendant resisted the suit and contended that the order of removal was justified and also submitted that the suit was not maintainable. The trial court, after framing the issues, held that the removal of the plaintiff from the services of the corporation was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice since no proper opportunity was given to him in the enquiry proceedings and therefore, decreed the suit. The trial court, while decreeing the suit, also found that the decree of damages was not an adequate and appropriate relief in the facts and circumstances of the case. The defendant, being aggrieved by the decree, filed an appeal, which was allowed against which, the plaintiff filed a second appeal which was allowed by a judgment dated 23. 11. 1981 holding that the court below did not consider nor decided Issue No. 7 with regard to the maintainability of the suit and accordingly, remanded the matter back to the lower appellate court to decide Issue No. 7 in the light of the observation made by the second appellate court. The operative portion of the order dated 23. 11. 1981 is quoted hereunder : " Under the circumstances, the appeal has to be allowed. It may be mentioned that for deciding the jurisdiction of the civil court, it was necessary to find what happened in the conciliation proceedings. If the matter was really referred to labour court or Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the position might be different, otherwise the suit would be maintainable in civil court under Section 9, C. P. C. vide Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar Sha. nta. ram Wadke and others, AIR 1975 SC 2238. Under the circumstances it was necessary for the court below to have decided issue No. 7 framed by it before deciding the appeal itself. The appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the court below are set aside and the case is remanded to it for deciding issue No. 7 as well and thereafter decide the case in accordance with law and observations made above. It is made clear that in case the lower appellate court is of the opinion, that oral evidence has to be recorded on issue No. 7, it may do so. The case may not be remanded to the trial court as it is already very old and the parties will be prejudiced to further remand. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. " Upon remand, the lower appellate court decided the matter again and held that the suit was maintainable and was not barred. The lower appellate court further affirmed the findings of the trial court holding that the disciplinary proceedings was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and that the relief of damages was not an appropriate relief. Consequently, the lower appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court. The defendant, being aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, has filed the present second appeal which was admitted on the following substantial question of law : 1. Whether the validity of the order of removal from service could not be adjudged on principles of natural justice and general principles regulating the procedure of domestic inquiry inasmuch as the entire field as to the procedure to be followed in such enquiry was covered by the Employees State Insurance 2. Whether in the absence of any finding as to the breach or non-compliance of any specific provision of the regulations mentioned above, the disciplinary proceedings could not be held to be invalid for the breach of principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the court below erred in holding that the order dated 14. 10. 1968, passed by the disciplinary authority giving fresh opportunity of defence to the respondent did not cure the alleged irregularity in the proceedings before the Inquiry Authority? 4. Whether the disciplinary proceedings could not be held to be against principles of natural justice in the absence of proof of prejudice caused to the respondent by the disciplinary authority having appeared as a witness of the inquiry before his subordinate officer on a charge framed on his complaint?
(3.) HEARD Sri B. N. Asthana, the learned counsel assisted by Sri P. K. Asthana for the defendant-appellant and Sri K. P. Agarwal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Pooja Srivastava for the plaintiff opposite party. The learned counsel for the appellant has not addressed the Court on the questions of law framed aforesaid and submitted that the only substantial question of law that arises for consideration was whether the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit or not. Accordingly, the following substantial question of law was framed, namely : " (i) whether the civil court had the jurisdiction to try the suit?";