JUDGMENT
Harbans Lal, J.
1. The instant civil second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 17, 1994 in Civil Appeal No. 143/1982 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the judgment and decree dated 20.8.1982 passed by the learned Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur has been upheld and affirmed.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that respondent Chandra Prakash Gupta was provisionally working as Librarian in the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan and he was declared permanent vide order dated 5.6.1967. He alleged to have misused the government fund in dereliction discharge of his duties. He also declared the post of Driver as surplus and as a result whereof the government jeep even though in working condition remained idle for more than 2 years. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him on the aforesaid charges under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (here-in-after called in short as “CCA Rules”). During the pendency of the said departmental inquiry, the post of Library Officer was advertised by the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly in the year 1973. He got his application forwarded for the same. After his selection he was appointed as a Library Officer. Since he was appointed on the post of Library Officer on probation for a period of one year through proper channel, it was mentioned in the relieving order that in the event of his being found guilty in the inquiry being conducted against him he would be liable for whatever punishment may be imposed upon him.
3. He was made permanent on 15.2.1975. After completion of inquiry, his two annual grade increments with cumulative effect were withheld. He made a revision against this punishment which was rejected by the Hon’ble Speaker on 30.12.1977. He then filed a suit seeking quashing of the order of punishment of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. After trial, the suit was decreed. The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed whereupon, the State has filed this second appeal.
4. This appeal was admitted on 5.2.1997 after framing the following substantial question of law on the basis of the judgment in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh and Ors. JT 1996 (5) SCC 403: –
If it be taken that inquiry was not fair, respondent cannot be reinstated as laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Dr. Harbhajan Singh (supra) ?
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the judgment of the learned court below being totally against the facts and law should be set-aside. The punishment imposed upon the respondent-plaintiff in departmental inquiry must be restored. Learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has supported the judgment of the courts below. He has submitted that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The question as framed also does not arise from the facts and circumstances of the case in as much as, the services of the respondent-plaintiff were neither terminated nor he was removed or dismissed from service so as to attract the applicability of the aforementioned judgment. The aforesaid judgment deals with a case of reinstatement of an employee therefore, services were terminated and he was removed from service and inquiry held against him was fond faulty whereas there is no such case here. Both the learned courts below have written concurrent finding that appointment of respondent-plaintiff was direct appointment and not appointment on transfer which concurrent finding of fact is neither challenged nor could be challenged in the second appeal. The orders dated 26.11.1977 and 30.12.1977 have been held to be illegal, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. They have been declared void which concurrent finding of appointment has not been challenged in this second appeal.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the entire record.
8. It is true as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that neither in the memo of appeal any substantial question of law has been framed nor any prayer to that effect has been made. So-called substantial question of law which has been framed in this case as quoted above also does not arise from the impugned judgment and facts of the case. It is further also true that two annual grade increments of the respondent-plaintiff were withheld with cumulative effect in the departmental inquiry against him under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. Neither any order of termination of service nor of removal nor of dismissal was passed against him. Therefore, the case on the basis of which the substantial question of law has been framed in this case on 5,2.1997 does not arise at all. It cannot be disputed that the respondent-plaintiff was appointed as Library Officer in Rajasthan Legislative Assembly pursuant to the advertisement made for the said post. He simply got his application forwarded through proper channel and, therefore, it was mentioned in the relieving order that he was liable for punishment which may be imposed upon him in the departmental inquiry. The Inquiry could not have been conducted and the punishment could not have been imposed upon Mm in the said inquiry by his new employer. He could at best be imposed punishment by his previous employer if he was found guilty of the charges framed against him in the departmental inquiry.
9. In this view of the matter, therefore, the courts below have rightly held that the orders dated 26.11.1977 and 30.12.1977 passed against him are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and accordingly, the same have rightly been declared to be void. Thus, the impugned judgments of the learned courts below being based on proper appreciation of materials on record, call for no interference in this second appeal.
10. In view of the foregoing discussions, there being absolutely no merit and substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.