RASTOGI, J. - (1.) IT is defendant's special appeal filed against judgment & decree dt. 28. 5. 1993 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer whereby dismissal of plaintiff dt. 11. 5. 76 has been set aside with the direction for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and affirmed by learned Single Judge while dismissing appeal vide judgment dt. 28. 5. 96.
(2.) BRIEF facts relevant to examine controversy are that plaintiff initially joined service on probation as Development Officer on 5. 4. 64 and was confirmed from 1. 4. 66. His service conditions are regulated by Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 ("staff Regulations") framed in exercise of powers vested under Cls. (b) & (bb) of sub-section (2) of S. 49 of Life Insurance Corporation of India ("lic" ). Charge sheet dt. 16. 4. 74 imputing six charges was served upon plaintiff. Pending inquiry, he was placed under suspension vide order dt. 9. 8. 74. A supplementary charge sheet was also served on 21. 10. 74. R. S. Maheshwari was appointed as inquiry officer, who after completion of inquiry proceedings, submitted his report to disciplinary authority on 29. 1. 76 - on the basis of which plaintiff was served with show cause notice on 23. 2. 76 holding inter-alia as to why he should not be dismissed from service. It is pertinent to mention here that neither copy of inquiry was made available to the plaintiff nor it was disclosed in show cause notice as to on what premise finding of guilt was recorded by inquiry officer or by disciplinary authority while the decision was taken of his dismissal from service vide order dt. 11. 5. 76. However, plaintiff submitted his reply to show cause notice on 2. 4. 76 inter-alia pointing out irregularities committed in process of inquiry by the officer and denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing to him; but without taking note of his submissions, by non-speaking order and further without disclosing its opinion, on the basis of which disciplinary authority held the plaintiff guilty of charges levelled and arrived to the conclusion for dismissal from service vide order dt. 11. 5. 76, against which he preferred departmental appeal under Reg. 40 of Service Regulations - that too was dismissed by a non-speaking order dt. 20. 12. 76 and memorial submitted to the LIC Chairman, also met with same fate vide order dt. 12. 10. 77. Aggrieved by the orders (supra), plaintiff respondent instituted a pauper suit U/o 7 R1 read with O. 33 R. 1, CPC, for seeking declaration that departmental inquiry proceedings which culminated into passing of order of dismissal from service which was affirmed by appellate authority and the LIC Chairman, be declared illegal and he be held entitled to reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. Permission to accord sanction for filing pauper suit was granted by Trial Court vide order dt. 26. 7. 82.
(3.) AS many as six issues were framed by Trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties. In totality, relevant issue under consideration was as to whether action of respondent in taking decision of his dismissal from service and rejection of appeal so also memorial to LIC Chairman, are in violation of principles of natural justice and in the absence of which, what relief plaintiff is entitled for. The Trial Court decided issues in favour of plaintiff while holding that there was complete violation of principles of natural justice and no reasonable opportunity of being heard was afforded to plaintiff, inasmuch as orders affirming dismissal from service by appellate authority so also LIC Chairman were also passed in breach of provisions contained in the Service Regulations. Ultimately the Trial Court passed a decree quashing & setting aside order of dismissal from service with further direction to reinstate the plaintiff in service alongwith consequential benefits including salary for intervening period; against which the appellant preferred first appeal before learned Single Judge, which has been dismissed and the findings recorded by Trial Court stands confirmed vide judgment dt. 28. 5. 96. Hence this special appeal. Shri M. D. Agrawal, Counsel for appellant urged that plaintiff was workman, so provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable, as such civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain suit to examine the validity of his dismissal from service in view of bar as provided in S. 9, CPC. In support of his contention Shri Agrawal placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Raj. State Road Trans. Corp. vs. Zakir Hussain, (2005 (5) Supreme 813) = (2005 (4) RLW 2512 (SC ). ;