G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS of a plaintiff a second appeal against the dismissal of the suit by the two courts below. The plaintiff was appointed as L. C. No. 464, in the office of the Prosecuting Sub Inspector office, G. R. P. Kota, attached to the Railway Magistrate, Kota. The plaintiff appellant was suspended on 12th January, 1957 by the Superintendent of Govt. Railway Police on the ground that he was involved in the case of misappropriation regarding opium from Malkhana. While passing the order of suspension, it was directed that the plaintiff should be transferred to the G. R. P. Lines, Jaipur. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff did not join at Jaipur nor he ever reported at Jaipur. The order of the transfer was persistently disobeyed and, therefore, the departmental enquiry resulted in dismissal of the plaintiff from service.
(2.) IN the present suit, various pleas have been taken by the plaintiff for challenging the order of dismissal but all of them have been repelled by the lower courts. Before this Court, Shri Virendra Lodha, appearing for the appellant plaintiff, learned counsel replied upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Madanmohanlal vs. State of Haryana (1) wherein it was held that during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, a police office cannot be transferred out of District. A reading of the judgment would show that it was based on a special rule, i. e. Rule 14. 15 (5) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Vol. II), which reads as under: "no police officer against whom criminal proceedings have been instituted shall be transferred to another district until the final order is passed in respect of such proceedings. " It is not in dispute that there is no such rule in Rajasthan. In view of this, the above principle laid down by the Punjab & Haryana High Court based on the special and specific rule cannot provide any guidance in decision of the present case. Shri Virendra Lodha then argued that the enquiry was not fair and some of the evidence was taken in the absence of the plaintiff. All said and done, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff persistently defayed the order directing him to report at Jaipur in police line, ft would, therefore,be futile exercise to further probe the submission regarding the absence of any fairness of there being any irregularity in the enquiry. The substance of the allegation being admitted in the dispute and since the plaintiff happened to be a police employee where discipline being more strict, the punishment cannot be said to be unjust. I am, therefore, not inclined to enter into the futile exercise of consideration of the entire evidence, afresh to find out, whether there is any violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, it is not possible in second appeal because the appreciation of evidence even if erroneous cannot be a ground for interference. No error of Law has been shown by Shri Virendra Lodha vitiating the enquiry, findings or the punishment. Before parting with this judgment, it may be mentioned that a civil servant should not back up unnecessary thems with the superior officers nor he should act in flagrant disregard, clear violation and wilful disobedience of the orders of the superiors in the matters of transfer or posting. Moreso, he was facing the charge of misappropriation. Such conduct of a police employee cannot be appreciated and it is to be deprecated because if discipline cannot be enforced in the police department, entire administration would be jeopardised. In the instant case on the admitted facts, the plaintiff refused to comply the orders for reporting at Jaipur and that too, for sufficiently long period of few years and not a few days. This conduct is reprehensible and, therefore, the plaintiff's punishment cannot be said to be unjust and. therefore,the appeal fails.
(3.) IN the result, this appeal is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. .;