[2025:RJ-JP:19214] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 147/2012 Rajendra Singh Verma Son of Charan Singh, Aged about 51 years, Resident of Jhalawad, At present New Colony, Boondi, District Boondi (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Bank of Baroda Rajasthan Regional Rural Bank through Chairman, Head Office City Plaza, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer-305004 (Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Pradhan Karyalaya Ajmer). 2. Prem Prakash Sharma, Ex-Chairman, Boondi Chittorgarh Regional Rural Bank, Head Office, Boondi, at present Administrative Officer, Regional Office, Bank of Baroda, Ajmer ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rohan Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 07/05/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Boondi in Civil Appeal No.34/2011, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 01.10.1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bundi in Civil Suit No.4/92, whereby the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of money, declaration and injunction. [2025:RJ-JP:19214] (2 of 6) [CSA-147/2012] Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction, declaration and recovery of amount of Rs.34,647.60 against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which it was stated that vide order dated 03.05.1985, the plaintiff was appointed as officer initially on probation for a period of two years. He assumed the charge of the office on 20.05.1985 and was posted as Branch Manager at Delwas Branch of the Bank. Due to illness, he could not attend the office on 11.09.1986 and submitted the leave application. He submitted the application for extending the leave but Bank Authorities got annoyed with him and asked him to resign from the post, otherwise his services would be terminated. His brother was also pressurized to ask the plaintiff to resign from the post. When the plaintiff went to Delwas Branch of the Bank on 20.10.1986, he found that other person was posted there in his place and plaintiff’s services were terminated. No enquiry was conducted prior to termination of the service. So, plaintiff filed a suit and prayed that the termination order be declared as unconstitutional null and void. Defendant-Bank filed the written statement and stated that plaintiff was resident of Uttar Pradesh and he did not fall sick on 11.09.1986 but wilfully remained absent from duty. His termination order was published in the newspaper on 20.10.1986. He obtained the job by submitting the forged domicile certificate. The affidavit submitted by the plaintiff was found forged on the basis of initially conducted by District Magistrate, Jhalawar. The plaintiff’s services were also found unsatisfactory, therefore, his services was terminated. The plaintiff came to know about the enquiry being conducted by the District Magistrate and he asked [2025:RJ-JP:19214] (3 of 6) [CSA-147/2012] the Bank not to hold any enquiry. As per the regulations, for appointment on the post of Officer in the Bank, the incumbent should be the resident of Rajasthan. A draft of Rs.1665/- was sent to the plaintiff and he was not entitled to get any other amount. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k oknh dh rch;r fnukad 11-09-1986 dks [kjkc gks tkus ls mlus vodk’k ds fy, vkosnu i= is’k fd;k ;k og vuf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr jgk\ 2- vk;k izfroknh Øe 2 oknh ls ukjkt gq, vkSj mUgksaus oknh ls LrhQk nsus dks dgk\ vxj gka] rks bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\ 3- vk;k izfroknh Øe 2 us Jh gjxksfoUn flag dks oknh ls LrhQk fnykus dks dgk o /kefd;ka nh\ vxj gka] rks bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\ 4- v- vk;k oknh dks lsok eqfDr dk vkns’k vkt rd Hkh izkIr ugha gqvk gS\ 4- c- vk;k izfroknh cSad dh lsok ls oknh dks fnukad 10-10-1986 dks gh eqDr djds mldks lwpuk ns nh xbZ Fkh vkSj bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\ 4- l- vk;k oknh dks oknh dh jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk ds nkSjku fnukad 11-09-1987 ds iwoZ gh oknh dh lsok eqfDr dh lwpuk gks xbZ vkSj bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\ 5- v- vk;k izfroknh cSad us oknh ij xyr 'kiFki= nsus] xyr 'kiFki= nsdj >wBk izek.k&i= izkIr djus dk vkjksi yxk;k gS] tks oknh ds pfj=] vkpj.k ij ykaNu gS o csbZTtrh djus okyk gS\ 5- c- vk;k izfroknh us bu vkjksiksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ fu;ekuqlkj tkap ugha dh vkSj bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\ 6- vk;k izfroknh cSad us oknh ds lEiw.kZ dk;Z ds ewY;kadu ij bldk dk;Z lUrks"ktud ugha gksus ls mldh lsokvksa dks ifjoh{kk dky esa lekIr fd;k x;k Fkk\ 7- vk;k izfroknh cSad }kjk fpRrkSM+x<+ {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad ¼LVkQ½ lfoZl jsxqys’ku] 1985 ds vuqlkj mlesa oftZr izfØ;k viuk;s fcuk oknh dks lsok eqDr fd;k x;k gS\ vxj gka rks bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\ 8- vk;k bu jsxqys’ku ds rgr lsok djus okyk jktLFkku izns’k dk fuoklh gksuk vko’;d ugha gS\ vxj gka rks bldk okn ij D;k vlj gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:19214] (4 of 6) [CSA-147/2012] 9- vk;k oknh dh lsok;sa lekIr djus dk vkns’k okn i= dh pj.k Øe 13] 14] 15] 16 o 17 esa of.kZr dkj.kksa ls vukf/kd`r] voS/kkfud] vfLrRoghu] izHkkoghu ,oa 'kwU; gS vkSj oknh lsok eqDr ugha gqvk gS\ 10- vk;k oknh izfroknhx.k ls 34647-60 :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ vfrfjDr rudh;kr%& 11- D;k izfroknh cSad dh lsok gsrq izkFkZuk&i= izLrqr djrs le; ,oa lk{kkRdkj o fu;qfDr ds le; oknh jktLFkku jkT; dk ewy fuoklh ugha Fkk\ 12- D;k oknh }kjk izLrqr ewy fuokl laca/kh izek.k&i= >wBk Fkk o >wBs 'kiFk i=ksa ij vk/kkfjr Fkk\ 13- D;k izfroknh cSad dh lsok gsrq p;fur gksus dh visf{kr vgZrk oknh dks ugha Fkk o fu;qfDr voS/kkfud gS\ 14- D;k oknh ds izfroknh cSad dh lsok esa j[kuk cSad fgr esa ugha gS\ To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW1- Rajendra Singh Verma. Defendants got examined as DW1-Dr. P. P. Sharma and DW2-Arjun Singh Rathore. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.10.1997, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff preferred the appeal against the impugned judgment and the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court committed an error in dismissing the suit as also the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Both the courts below had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that it is a settled proposition of law that a probationer could not be terminated from service without conducting the enquiry. As per rules, defendants had not conducted any enquiry. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that the plaintiff had not procured the domicile certificate fraudulently and it was issued after following [2025:RJ-JP:19214] (5 of 6) [CSA-147/2012] procedure as laid down in law. He also submits that since, the plaintiff was ill, he sent the leave application before the concerned authorities. So, judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed by the appellate court as well as judgment and decree dated 01.10.1997 passed by the trial court be set aside and the termination order issued against the plaintiff be declared null and void. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that the plaintiff obtained the service by submitting the forged domicile certificate. District Collector, Jhalawar had written the letter that the plaintiff was not resident of Rajasthan. Plaintiff wilfully remained absent from duty. Since, the plaintiff was a probationer, so, there was not need to conduct the enquiry. So, trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that plaintiff was wilfully remained absent from duty and he had obtained the service on account of forged domicile certificate. He was a probationer. It is a settled proposition of law that no enquiry was required to be conducted for termination of a probationer. So, defendants rightly terminated the services of the plaintiff. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, [2025:RJ-JP:19214] (6 of 6) [CSA-147/2012] no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /65