[2025:RJ-JP:9927] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 348/2019 Bhairulal S/o Sadaram, R/o Charanon Ka Bas (A), House No. 32, Ward No. 19, Pali, Presently Working As Driver, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Pali Depot, District Pali. ----Appellant Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur. 2. Karyakari Nideshak (Electrcal), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Mukhyalaya Jaipur. 3. Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Pali Depot, District Pali (Raj.). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Punia Mr. Inder Jeet Tak For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 04/03/2025 1. The instant civil second appeal is preferred by appellant – plaintiff aggrieved from judgment dated 20.02.2019 in civil regular appeal No.18/2013 (224/2013) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby on an appeal preferred by respondents-defendants, the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2013 in civil suit No.457/2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan was set aside and suit preferred by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:9927] (2 of 9) [CSA-348/2019] 2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ministry of Finance and Another Vs. S.B. Ramesh : (1998) 3 SCC 227 and Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Ors.: (1999) 2 SCC 10, submitted that after serving a charge-sheet, an enquiry was conducted against appellant-plaintiff by adopting process contrary to principles of natural justice. He further submitted that neither fair nor sufficient opportunity is provided to appellant-plaintiff to defend in the departmental proceeding before the Enquiry Officer. He further referred the evidence of DW-2 Ganga Ram and submitted that his admission clearly indicated that the statements were recorded without appointment of Enquiry Officer and same were considered by subsequent Enquiry Officer, which is contrary to principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the Department has not supplied the relevant documents on demand by the appellant and same has caused prejudice to the plaintiff, and placing reliance upon the documents without supplying a copy amounts to denial of fair opportunity to delinquent. At last, he submitted that the trial court after considering the evidence on record has decreed the suit of plaintiff but the appellate court has set aside the findings without a convincing reasoning, which is perverse finding. 3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the entire material on record along with judgments as referred by learned counsel for appellant. 4. The facts giving rise to the instant second appeal are that plaintiff-appellant has filed a civil suit with prayer to declare order No.425 dated 30.06.2006 as null and void whereby four annual [2025:RJ-JP:9927] (3 of 9) [CSA-348/2019] increments withheld with cumulative effect and further remaining salary during suspension period forfeited. A written statement was filed by the defendants and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court has framed as many as four issues. 5. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 whereas two witnesses DW-1 Prahlad Pareek and DW-2 Gangaram Sangwa were examined by the defendants and documents were also exhibited by both the parties. 6. Learned trial court after considering the evidence on record has decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff but decided issue Nos.2 and 3 against the defendants. As a result, the suit preferred by plaintiff was decreed and punishment order No.425 dated 30.06.2006 was declared as null and void. 7. On an appeal preferred by defendants, the findings on issue No.1 was reversed and set aside though findings on issue Nos.2 and 3 were affirmed. As a result, the appeal was allowed and judgment and decree, in favour of plaintiff, was set aside. 8. In case of Ministry of Finance and Another Vs. S.B. Ramesh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering matter relating to departmental enquiry held that relying a document allegedly containing the statement of a lady without offering for cross-examination to delinquent is contrary to the settled principle. In case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Ors. (supra) it was held that a reasonable and sufficient opportunity should be affording to the delinquent. 9. In case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa: (2009) 4 SCC 299, a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- [2025:RJ-JP:9927] (4 of 9) [CSA-348/2019] “Applying the said principles to the fact of the cases wherein the plaintiffs alleged that the enquiries were conducted in violation of the Standing Orders whereas the stand taken by the Corporation was that the requirements contained in the Standing Orders were complied with, the Bench, however, noticed that no Regulation had been framed by the Corporation in terms of Section 45 of the Act insofar as the employees answering the description of ‘workman’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the 1947 Act are concerned. It appears that therein no dispute was raised that the provisions of the Standing Orders were applicable. The question, therefore, which inter alia arose for consideration was as to whether in holding the departmental proceeding the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders were violated or not. While holding that Civil Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit was bared, it was held: “37. It is directed that the principles enunciated in this judgment shall apply to all pending matters except where decrees have been passed by the trial court and the matters are pending in appeal or second appeal, as the case may be. All suits pending in the trial court shall be governed by the principles enunciated herein — as also the suits and proceedings to be instituted hereinafter.” With greatest of respect to the learned judges, if a statute while creating rights and obligations did not constitute a forum for enforcing the same, plenary jurisdiction of the civil court in view of The Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke of Bombay & ors. [(1976) 1 SCC 496] could not be held to have been taken away. There was also no occasion to extend the scope of the dicta laid down therein. Certified Standing Orders lay down the terms and conditions of service. It did not create any new right such as Section 25F, 25G or 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Any new right created under a statute would ordinarily be a right in favour of an employee over and above the general law. Let us, [2025:RJ-JP:9927] (5 of 9) [CSA-348/2019] however, proceed on the basis that the dicta laid down therein is correct.” 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that there is a presumption that civil court has jurisdiction and ouster of civil court’s jurisdiction is of not to be readily inferred. While considering observance of natural justice, normally compliance of three rules firstly, the party must be afforded an opportunity of hearing, secondly, the person making decision or enquiry should not be biased which means the decision must be in a free and fair manner and, lastly, there has to be a reasoned decision. 11. Herein, a perusal of cross-examination of PW-1 (appellant plaintiff) clearly indicated that a chargesheet was served upon him. He also admitted appointment of Enquiry Officer and departmental representative. The admission further indicated that he has filed reply to the charge-sheet and same was exhibited as A-12. The admission also indicate that the evidence in defence was also recorded and exhibit A-19 is submitted in defence. 12. The plaintiff (PW-1) has failed to prove any biasness against the Enquiry Officer. He also failed to point out the details of document not supplied to him on his demand, which caused prejudice to his defence. He also failed to exhibit his application made to Enquiry Officer for supply of documents. The entire proceedings were exhibited by defendants and plaintiff has not filed a single document which could establish that the defendants have violated principles of natural justice. Not a single material is placed on record, which could point out breach of principles of natural justice, on part of defendants. [2025:RJ-JP:9927] (6 of 9) [CSA-348/2019] 13. It appears that learned trial court without understanding the principles of natural justice and perusal of the material on record, has decreed the civil suit which is contrary to the evidence on record. The appellate court has not committed any error while setting aside the judgment and decree, passed against the material on record. 14. In view of aforesaid, the grounds do not give rise to any of substantial questions of law as proposed in memo of appeal. Therefore, the appeal sans merits and does not require consideration under Section 100 of CPC. 15. Section 100 of CPC provides for second appeal in case wherein the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Thus, the First Appellate Court is final court on facts and in second appeal normally cannot re-appreciate the evidence or facts. 16. Just to determine whether a question is substantial question of law or not, was laid down by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons. Ltd. Vs. Century Spg. and Mgf. Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314, as under: "The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law." [2025:RJ-JP:9927] (7 of 9) [CSA-348/2019] 17. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suresh Lataruji Ramteke versus Sau. Sumabai Pandurang Petkar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6070/2023, arising out of SLP(C)No.20183 of 2022 decided on 21.09.2023) considered the scope of Section 100 of CPC and summarised the law as under: 13. The jurisprudence on Section 100, CPC is rich and varied. Time and again this Court in numerous judgments has laid down, distilled and further clarified the requirements that must necessarily be met in order for a Second Appeal as laid down therein, to be maintainable, and thereafter be adjudicated upon. Considering the fact that numerous cases are filed before this Court which hinge on the application of this provision, we find it necessary to reiterate the principles. 13.1 The requirement, most fundamental under this section is the presence and framing of a “substantial question of law”. In other words, the existence of such a question is sine qua non for exercise of this jurisdiction. 13.2 The jurisdiction under this section has been described by this Court in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki (2007) 1 SCC 546 (Two-Judge Bench) stating that post 1976 amendment, the scope of Section 100 CPC stands drastically curtailed and narrowed down to be restrictive in nature. The High Court’s jurisdiction of interfering under Section 100 CPC is only in a case where substantial questions of law are involved, also clearly formulated/set out in the memorandum of appeal. It has been observed that: “At the time of admission of the second appeal, it is the bounden duty and obligation of the High Court to formulate substantial questions of law and then only the High Court is permitted to proceed with the case to decide those questions of law. The language used in the amended section specifically incorporates the words as “substantial question of law” which is indicative of the legislative intention. It must be clearly understood that the legislative intention was very clear that legislature never wanted second appeal to become “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble”. The effect of the amendment mainly, according to the amended section, was: (i) The High Court would be justified in admitting the second appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved; (ii) The substantial question of law to precisely state such question; (iii) A duty has been cast on the High Court to formulate substantial question of law before hearing the appeal; [2025:RJ-JP:9927] (8 of 9) [CSA-348/2019] (iv) Another part of the section is that the appeal shall be heard only on that question.” Gurdev Kaur (supra) was referred to and relied upon in Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. (2019) 17 SCC 71 13.3 In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 a Bench of three Judges, held as under in regard to what constitutes a substantial question of law:- a) Not previously settled by law of land or a binding precedent. b) Material bearing on the decision of case; and (c) New point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, it will depend on facts of each case. Such principles stand followed in Government of Kerala v. Joseph 2023 SCC Online SC 961 and Chandrabhan v. Saraswati 2022 SCC Online SC 1273. 16.5 Interference on findings of fact permitted in exceptional cases, i.e., when finding is based on either inadmissible or, no evidence. This Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali (2010) 12 SCC 740 referring to various other cases held:- a) It is not permissible for High Court to reappreciate evidence as if it was the first appellate court unless findings were perverse. b) Finding of fact can be interfered in exceptional circumstances as rarity, rather than a regularity. c) Scrutiny of evidence in second appeal is not prohibited but has to be exercised upon proper circumspection. 18. In case of Amar Singh Vs. Dalip Singh (2012) 13 SCC 405, Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the purpose of framing question of law in following manner: “a) The purpose of framing of substantial question of law is to give the parties an opportunity to come prepared on that particular question. b) When a substantial question of law is formulated by the Court then the same must be made known to parties and thereafter they have to be given an opportunity to advanced arguments thereon. c) If any additional questions were framed at the time of hearing, the Court must hear the parties on that question as well.” [2025:RJ-JP:9927] (9 of 9) [CSA-348/2019] 19. Hon’ble Court in case of Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1273 (decided on 22.09.2022) has summarised principle relating to Section 100 of CPC in following words:- “(i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof.” 20. In view of aforesaid, the instant second appeal is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. 21. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/212