MADAN, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant appeal, Ghanshyam appellant-plaintiff herein has challenged the judgment & decree dated 27. 11. 1989 of the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the judgment & decree dated 28. 1. 1980 of the Munsiff Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur has been affirmed and plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
(2.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit for declaration challenging the impugned order of punishment dt. 4. 8. 1971 and order of appellate authority dt. 22. 9. 1973. By the impugned order of punishment, the plaintiff-appellant who was discharging the duties as Tehsildar, was charged with certain financial irregularities committed by him in discharge of his duties, on the basis of a complaint filed against him. THE petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dt. 16. 4. 1969 passed by the disciplinary authority. Charge sheet was issued under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the "cca Rules") to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed an enquiry. THE enquiry was conducted by the Addl. District Magistrate Kota. THE charges were proved against the plaintiff and accordingly he was punished with stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect and it was also held that during suspension period the plaintiff was entitled only to the subsistence allowance and other dues admissible to the petitioner i. e. salary and allowance for suspension period were directed to be forfeited to the State Exchequer. THE order of punishment was challenged by the plaintiff in appeal preferred before the State Government, which upheld the order of punishment and dismissed his appeal by order dt. 22. 9. 1973, against which the plaintiff filed a declaratory suit inter-alia on the averments that the orders of punishment of both the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority were both not sustainable in the eyes of law being not in conformity with requirement of law as they were not speaking orders because they did not assign reasons which impelled the disciplinary authority for imposing punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect. In their written statement, the defendants denied the averments made in the plaint. It is contended on their behalf inter-alia that an ample opportunity of defending himself and of being heard was given to the plaintiff during inquiry proceedings inasmuch as, all the documents sought by the plaintiff were not only got inspected but also furnished to him. It was also contended on their behalf that the imputations of the charge were crystal clear and specifically based on material on record and not ambiguous and that apart, charge sheet was issued by competent authority under the CCA. Rules. According to the defendants, the suit was time barred and the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed following issues- (1) Whether charge sheet dt. 12. 5. 1969 on the basis of which disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the plaintiff was non-est and void, illegal being issued maliciously and without jurisdiction? (2) Whether there is deficit court fees? (3) Whether suit was barred by limitation? (4) Whether the notice sent U/sec. 80 CPC by the plaintiff was in accordance with law? (5) Relief. ? Plaintiff, besides examining himself as PW 1 produced documents Ex. 1 to Exh. 3. Defendants examined Fateh Singh DW 1 and produced documents Exh. A/1 to Exh. A/15. The onus to prove issue Nos. 2 to 4 was on the defendants. Issue No. 2 was not pressed on behalf of the defendants. Under Issue No. 3 and No. 4, the trial court held that the defendants failed to prove these issues and therefore the plaintiff's suit was held to be within limitation and notice u/sec. 80 CPC was also held to be in accordance with law. Thus, Issue Nos. 2 to 4 were decided against the defendants. However, issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff on the basis of which his suit was dismissed by the trial Court by its judgment dt. 28. 1. 1980. The plaintiff then went in appeal against the dismissal of suit before the appellate court. In first appeal the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court by its judgment dt. 27. 11. 1989. Hence, this second appeal.
(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself and considered their rival contentions, and also having examined the relevant material on record with reference to the legal position as well, the questions of law, which do arise for consideration by this Court in this second appeal are formulated as under- (1) Whether it is open to the appellant to challenge concurrent findings which have been recorded by two courts below on proper appreciation of evidence on record particularly when the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration an over all view of the matter and had found the plaintiff appellant guilty of the impugned charges of having committed financial irregularity as alleged in the memo of charge sheet? (2) Whether the order of punishment has not been passed by the competent authority namely Chairman Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer who is duly empowered in exercise of its powers as specified in part 111 and Rule 15 (1) of the CCA Rules? (3) Whether the order of punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect which was affirmed by the appellate authority (State Government) in appeal is open to challenge merely on the ground that no reasons have been assigned in the manner as so alleged? (4) Whether it is open to the appellant to challenge the finding of the aforesaid two authorities particularly when the appellant was given due opportunity of hearing and even on principles of natural justice it would be fallacious to arrive at contrary decision that the impugned order of punishment suffers from vice of being non-speaking particularly when on proper appreciation of evidence, it was found by the said authorities that the appellant was guilty of the charges of grave financial irregularities? In support of contentions advanced at the bar, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court inter alia- Siemens Engineering Co. vs. Union of India (1), Mahabir Auto Stores vs. Indian Oil Corporation (2), Hemendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (3) (Rajasthan High Court), and Karan Singh vs. Union of India (4) (Rajasthan High Court ). In Siemens Engineering Co. 's case (supra), the question which had arisen for consideration before the Apex Court in an appeal was as to whether the custom authorities were justified in imposing import duty chargeable on Pot motors when imported separately from Rayon Spinning frames, and whether do they fall within Item 72 (3) or Item 73 (21) of the First Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff under the Tariff Act 1934? The order of the customs authority was assailed on the ground that proceedings before the Assistant Collector arising from the notices demanding payment of differential duty were quasi judicial ones and so also were the proceedings in revision before the Collector and the Government of India. Before the Apex Court, indeed it was not disputed and, therefore, it was observed that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. However, it was not suggested that the Collector should pass an elaborate order. It is essential that the administrative authority and the Tribunal should afford fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be effected by orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them and then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi judicial function would be able to justify their existence and carry credibility in the adjudicatory process. ;