[2025:RJ-JP:41576] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 47/2001 1. Kaluram Tailor s/o Shri Laxman Ji, (since deceased) his following legal representatives:- 1/1. Smt. Lali Devi wife of late Shri Kaluram Tailor 1/2. Shri Manoj Kumar son of Late Shri Kaluram Tailor 1/3. Shri Sunil Kumar Son of Late Shri Kaluram Tailor All are residents of R/o Villager and Post Tikawala, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan ----Plaintiff/Appellants Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, through its Managing Director cum General Manager, Parivahan Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. The Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Ajmer, Rajasthan 3. The General Manager (Traffic), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.L. Gupta For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 30/06/2025 1. Instant S.B. Civil Second Appeal is preferred by appellant- plaintiff aggrieved from judgment dated 10.11.2000 in Civil Regular Appeal No.65/2000 (112/1995) and Civil Regular Appeal No.61/2000 (164/1995), filed aggrieved from judgment dated 05.01.1995 in Civil Suit No.1148/1988 “Kalu Ram Tailor Vs. RSRTC and Ors.” and passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby an appeal preferred by defendants was allowed and the appeal preferred by plaintiff was [2025:RJ-JP:41576] (2 of 7) [CSA-47/2001] dismissed resulting in rejection of Civil Suit which was partially decreed by the trial Court. 2. During pendency of the second appeal, appellant-plaintiff Kalu Ram Tailor had expired and his legal heirs were substituted to continue the instant appeal. 3. While considering the appeal for admission on 24.01.2001, a Co-ordinate Bench has framed following substantial questions of law for admission:- “(1) Whether to file a suit for challenging the order of dismissal and the order of appellate authority, the period of limitation has to be counted from the initial order passed by the disciplinary authority or from the date of the order passed by the appellate authority in the appeal, as in this case, the order of the appellate authority is or 05/09/1985 and the suit has been filed on 17/07/1988, within three years from the date of the order passed by the departmental appellate authority? (2) Whether the averments and evidence are deemed to be admitted in a case where the same are not denied specifically by the defendants by way of leading evidence and the evidence led in support of the averments by the plaintiff remains uncontroverted and untebutted, as in this case, the defendants have not filed the written statement concerning with the plaint nor controverted or rebutted the evidence led by the plaintiff?” 4. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiff submitted that aggrieved from dismissal order dated 17.05.1983 and affirmation by the Appellate Authority on 05.09.1985, the plaintiff has challenged both the orders on ground of violation of principles of natural justice as the plaintiff was not afforded an opportunity for reasonable and fair defence. He further submitted that the trial Court has partially decreed the suit while deciding issue No.3 [2025:RJ-JP:41576] (3 of 7) [CSA-47/2001] about limitation in favour of plaintiff. He further submitted that after dismissal of appeal, the plaintiff has filed a declaratory suit within three years from date of dismissal of appeal and same is maintainable under the law. He also submitted that aggrieved from the judgment passed by the trial Court, the defendants have preferred an appeal before the District Judge and same was transferred to learned Additional District Judge No.1. Similarly, dissatisfied from refusal to allow partial relief, the plaintiff has filed another appeal but the Appellate Court without considering any other ground has decided issue on ground of limitation and considering the first order of termination dated 17.05.1983 drawn an erroneous conclusion that period of three years ended on 07.05.1986. He also submitted that a departmental appeal is prescribed from order of termination and plaintiff has availed the remedy and only after the dismissal of the departmental appeal, he filed a civil suit within a period of three years, therefore, the conclusion drawn by learned First Appellate Authority is contrary to settle proposition of law. He also submitted that the plaintiff is also entitled for consequential benefits if the order of termination is bad in eye of law as he is deemed to be continued in service which is sufficient for him to secure a relief of regularization with regular pay and emoluments. 5. No one is present on behalf of the defendants despite service of notice. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Kalu Ram Tailor has filed a civil suit on 27.07.1988 challenging termination order dated 17.05.1983 and appeal order dated 05.09.1985. The ground for challenge is violation of principle of natural justice. A [2025:RJ-JP:41576] (4 of 7) [CSA-47/2001] cause of action is primarily accrued after order dated 17.05.1983 but considering dismissal of appeal on 05.09.1985, the suit is filed accordingly. Defendants in their reply have pleaded that the services of plaintiff were terminated on 09.05.1984 but denied the fact of filing of any appeal, by plaintiff. The trial Court has framed as many as six issues. On 21.01.1991, learned trial Court has directed the defendants to file on record documents dated 15.05.1983, termination order dated 17.05.1983 and appeal order dated 05.09.1985. PW-1 Kalu Ram has exhibited a copy of appeal memo as Ex.2 and UPC postal receipt as Ex.1. No evidence is produced by the defendants. The trial Court has decreed the suit considering filed within period of limitation and directed defendants to continue the plaintiff on role after declaring order dated 17.05.1983 and 05.09.1985 as null and void and violative of principle of natural justice. 7. The Appellate Court without noticing the fact that no evidence is filed by the defendants but still decided issue of limitation on the ground of original order without considering the provision related to filing of departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority. 8. In case of Rajastan State Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa : (2009) 4 SCC 299, a three judges’ Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that where violation of principle of natural justice is alleged, a Civil Court has limited jurisdiction to entertain a civil suit. 9. Here in this case, the plaintiff has alleged that his services were terminated in violation of principle of natural justice as he was not afforded an opportunity of fair and reasonable defence. [2025:RJ-JP:41576] (5 of 7) [CSA-47/2001] The material on record clearly indicate that defendants have not filed any evidence and documents to contradict the claim of plaintiff. It is also evident that despite order of the trial Court, the defendants have not filed any documents on record. 9. In case of RSRTC & Anr. Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa :(2009) 2 SCR 161, Hon’ble Supreme Court has also considered purview and provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) and observed that the infringement of fundamental rights of any employee has to be considered after examining every cause of action and dispute between employer and employee. Only because an employee is also workman within the meaning of ID Act, or his services are governed by standing order certified under 1946 Act, that does not mean that the Civil Court will ipso facto not have jurisdiction. 10. Now comes the question whether a departmental appeal is continuation of original proceedings initiated by disciplinary authority or not and a substantial question of law is framed while admitting the appeal by the Co-ordinate Bench. The First Appellate Court has considered original order of 1983 for the purpose of accrual of cause of action but ignored the order of Appellate Authority passed in 1985. The defendants have failed to submit orders passed in relation to the plaintiff and an adverse inference is required to be drawn. 10. Admittedly, there is principle of merger and same is normally applied in case an appeal is filed to challenge the judgment of trial Court and first appeal is continuation of civil suit. The departmental appeal is also considered continuation of original proceedings initiated by the disciplinary authority as same is only [2025:RJ-JP:41576] (6 of 7) [CSA-47/2001] alternative and efficacious remedy available for the employee to challenge action of the disciplinary authority under the rules or the standing order. The principle underlying is doctrine of merger wherein the Appellate Authority also had power and authority to deviate and modify the order passed by the disciplinary authority. It is also settled law that in an appeal re-appreciation of evidence under the rules of evidence is permissible thus the doctrine of merger fully applies to the departmental proceedings. 11. To substantiate the reasons as mentioned hereinabove, we can refer and relied upon judgments in case of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors vs Kalyan Banerjee : (2008) 3 SCC 456, Sharda Singh Vs. State of UP and Ors. AIR Online 2009 SC 573 and Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. : (2006) 3 SCC 658. 12. Having considered aforesaid issues, the Appellate Court has committed serious error while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff and also allowing the appeal, filed by the defendants on ground of law of limitation by declaring that the suit is barred by law of limitation, therefore, the issues are accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff (appellant) since the First Appellate Court has not considered both the appeals on merits, therefore, it is appropriate to refer back the appeal to the First Appellate Court for consideration in accordance with law. 13. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant second appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff (since dead) is hereby allowed and the judgment dated 10.11.2000 in Civil Regular Appeal Nos.112/1995 (65/2000) and 164/1995 (61/2000) are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the First [2025:RJ-JP:41576] (7 of 7) [CSA-47/2001] Appellate Court for reconsideration of appeal after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The trial Court is directed to issue notice to the parties concerned, if they remain absent and after service upon the parties decide the appeal within a period of three months from the date of service upon both the parties. 14. The parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 03.11.2025. 15. Miscellaneous application, (pending, if any) also stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/77