Viney Mittal,J. - (1.) (Oral)
(2.) THE plaintiff has concurrently lost before the two courts below. He filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction challenging the termination order dated December 11,1995. THE facts, which emerge from the record, show that the plaintiff was working as a Pharmacist with the Primary Health Centre at Chhara. On detection of shortage in the stock, an FIR was lodged. THE plaintiffappellant was also arrested in the aforesaid criminal case. Simultaneously, the plaintiff was also charge-sheeted departmentally. THE plaintiff confessed his guilt regarding theft of medicines by making a statement Ex.PW2/A on March 18,1992. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, the order of termination was passed by the department. Although the plaintiff was ultimately acquitted of the criminal charge by the criminal Court but on account of confession of his guilt before the departmental authorities, the order of termination was maintained. Both the courts below have held that since the plaintiff had confessed his guilt by making a statement Ex.PW2/A, therefore, it could not be held that the order of termination passed against the plaintiff was, in any manner, bad or liable to be set aside. R.S.A. No. 2636 of 2005. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the two courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.;