- (1.) The instant Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the defendant appellants against impugned judgment and decree dated 22.2.1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 152 whereby the appeal filed by the defendant appellants against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.1991 passed by the Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City was dismissed.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that plaintiff-respondent had filed a civil suit for declaration against the defendant appellants in the court of Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur City alleging therein that he was appointed to the post of Conductor on permanent basis and was performing his duties diligently and honestly. However, the defendants removed him from service vide order dated 129 dated 31.10.1983. The departmental appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 9.7.1985. The plaintiff respondent prayed for declaration of both the orders illegal and void ab-initio as the allegations levelled against him were wrong, false and baseless and the same be quashed and set aside as before issuance of the charge-sheet neither any show cause notice was issued to him which was mandatory nor the copies of the required documents i.e. BCR, Way-bill and tickets were supplied to him due to which he could not submit a proper reply and defend himself. During the course of enquiry neither the statements of the witnesses were recorded in his presence nor he was given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. He was also not provided opportunity to produce his evidence and the entire enquiry was against the provisions of Section 35 of the Standing Orders and also the principle of natural justice. Neither the report of the enquiry was provided to him nor he was made acquainted with the same. He was also not heard on the point of punishment/penalty and the order of his dismissal does not come within the definition of 'speaking order'. It was mentioned that the appellate authority also did not provide proper opportunity to defend himself and opportunity of hearing. Hence, the plaintiff respondent prayed for a mandatory decree declaring the order of dismissal and the order of the appellate authority as illegal, void ab-initio and against the principles of natural justice and that he is entitled to the entire benefits for which he was entitled had he been in service.
(3.) Defendant appellants submitted their written statement and disputed the averments made by the plaintiff-respondent in his plaint regarding his appointment to the permanent post of Conductor and his working sincerely and honestly. Admitting the fact that the plaintiff was dismissed from service vide order dated 31.10.1983, they denied the fact that the appeal of the plaintiff respondent was decided on 9.7.1985. It was submitted that on receiving complaint against the plaintiff respondent, explanation regarding allegations was sought from him. He was supplied with all the required documents. Enquiry officer was appointed as per law and during the course of enquiry, full opportunity to defend himself and hearing was provided to him. No signature of the plaintiff was obtained on blank papers. He never prayed for time to obtain any document. On completion of enquiry, result of the same was made known to the plaintiff and a copy of the enquiry report was also supplied to him. He was also provided full opportunity of hearing on the quantum of punishment and after hearing him the order of punishment was passed. In additional pleas it was mentioned that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the civil suit and the suit is barred by limitation and the suit had been filed after a long delay without any cause of action. Hence, it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent be dismissed with costs.;