MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) THESE appeals have been filed by the plaintiffs against the similar judgments of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur dated March 7, 1987 by which he allowed the appeals and set aside the similar judgments of the learned Munsif, Udaipur (South) dated September 14, 1984, dismissing the suits for declaration. The facts and law involved in both the cases are similar. As such both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The facts may be summarised thus.
(2.) THE appellants were if the employment of the respondents as Conductors in their buses. Flying Squads of the respondents checked the buses in which the appellants were conductors and found that they had taken fare from certain number of passengers but had not issued tickets to them. Necessary enquiries were held against them under Rajasthan Roadways Workers and Workshops Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter to be called the Standing Orders). The Administrative Officer, Divisional Office, Udaipur was appointed as the Enquirying Officer in both the enquiries. He sent his enquiry -reports to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed orders terminating the appellants' services. The appellants filed suits in the court of the Munsif, Udaipur (South) for declaration that the said dismissal orders are void and they still continue in serves with the allegations that the domestic enquiries held against them were illegal, principles of natural justice were not observed, charge -sheets were vague, reasonable opportunity to produce defence evidence was not given, the copies of the enquiry reports were not furnished and they were not heard before the dismissal orders were passed. The defendants admitted in their written statements that the plaintiffs were in their employment as Conuctors, enquiries were held against them and they have been dismissed from the service. They further averred that there was no provision in the standing orders for the supply of the copy of the enquiry report and giving opportunity of hearing before passing order of penalty. It was also averred that the enquiries have been conducted in accordance with the standing orders, Civil court has not jurisdiction to entertain and try such suits and the Industrial Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction in such matters. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the trial court held that the plaintiffs were not given opportunity to produce their evidence, termination orders are illegal and accordingly decreed the suits. On appeals, the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur reversed the findings and allowed the appeals as said above.
(3.) THE appeal No. 22/87 was admitted on March 12, 1987 and the following substantial questions of law were framed: 1. Whether the dismissal order which is alleged to be not a speaking order by itself is valid in law when the same has been made without furnishing the delinquent a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report? 2. Whether an order of punishment made on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer is invalid if the same has been made without furnishing a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer so as to enable the delinquent to make his submissions about the report of the Enquiry Officer? The appeal No. 23/87 was admitted on March 13, 1987 and the following substantial questions of law were framed: 1. Whether the dismissal order which is alleged to be not a speaking order is valid in law specially when it has been made without furnishing the delinquent with the copy of the Enquiry Officer's report? 2. Whether the order made by placing reliance on the past record without disclosing the same in the notice can be legally made the basis of imposing the punishment on the delinquent?;