[2025:RJ-JP:28525] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 375/2001 1. Union of India through General Manager, Wastern Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai 2. Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai 3. Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Western Railway, Kota Junction, Kota ----Appellant Versus Niranjan Prakash Sharma Son of Shri Vinayram Sharma, New Railway Colony, Kota (Since deceased) 1/1. Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Shri Niranjan Prakash Sharma, aged about 55 years, Resident of C/o. Kantra Contractors House, Tullapura, Kota (Raj.) 1/2. Prashant Sharma S/o Late Shri Niranjan Prakash Sharma, aged about 25 years, Diesel Driver, Western Railway, Ratlam 1/3. Dakshana Sharma W/o Rajendra Kumar Sharma, D/o Late Shri Niranjan Prakash Sharma, aged about 30 Years, Resident of through Mother C/o Kanta Contractors House, Tullapura, Kota 1/4. Archana Sharma W/o Yogesh Sharma, D/o Late Shri Niranjan Prakash Sharma, aged about 27 years, Resident of through Mother C/o Kanta Contractors House, Tullapura, Kota ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitesh Kumawat, Adv. for Mr. Pradeep Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 29/07/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2000 passed by Additional District Judge No.4, Kota in Civil Regular Appeal No.17/97, whereby the appellate [2025:RJ-JP:28525] (2 of 4) [CSA-375/2001] court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) and set aside the judgments and decree dated 06.01.1997 and 30.05.1998 passed by the trial court and decreed the plaintiff’s suit. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendants in which he stated that plaintiff was a permanent employee of the defendants. Allegation against the plaintiff was that while he was on duty on 11.02.1989 he was found in a drunken state and frenzy. So, reputation of Railway Department was ruined. He was suspended and later on he was reinstated. Thereafter, on the basis of false allegation, the plaintiff was again suspended but was not taken on duty. The plaintiff was issued two charge-sheets. Enquiry was commenced but the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to defend his case and thus principle of natural justice was violated. It was further stated that this aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration and the plaintiff’s service was terminated vide order dated 17.04.1990. Defendants filed reply and it was stated that termination order rightly passed. So, plaintiff had no right to challenge it by a civil suit. So, suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k okn&i= ds pj.k la[;k&6 o 9 ds vuqlkj pqukSfrxzLr lsok eqfDr dk vkns’k fnukad 17-4-90 vuqfpr voS/k ,oa oknh ds fo:) vd`r ,oa 'kwU; gS\ 2- vk;k oknh jhLVsVesaV iw.kZ osru o fuyEcu vof/k dk osru ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:28525] (3 of 4) [CSA-375/2001] 3- vk;k oknh dk okn /kkjk 80 lh-ih-lh- ds fof/kor uksfVl ugha fn;s tkus ds dkj.k pyus iks"k.kh; ugha gS\ 4- vuqrks"k\** To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW1- Niranjan Prakash Sharma. Defendants got examined as DW1-R. C. Verma, DW2-R. C. Sharma, DW3-Harbilas Rai. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.1997 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 06.01.1997 and the appellate court vide its judgment dated 17.12.1997 framed additional issue and remanded the matter to the trial court for adjudication. Accordingly, the trial court adjudicated the matter and vide its judgment dated 30.05.1998 held the enquiry report and the termination order dated 17.04.1990 null and void as against the plaintiff. Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff filed an appeal and the appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2000 allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff, set aside the judgments and decree dated 06.01.1997 and 30.05.1998, decreed the plaintiff’s suit and declared the plaintiff’s termination order dated 17.04.1990 as illegal, null and void and declared the plaintiff continuously in service as he was prior to issuance of the order dated 17.04.1990 and held him entitled to get all back wages. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the appellate court had committed an error in considering the fact regarding acquittal of the plaintiff which were not in existence at the time of trial. So, facts which are not pleaded, cannot be considered at this stage. Learned counsel for the defendants also [2025:RJ-JP:28525] (4 of 4) [CSA-375/2001] submits that acquittal in criminal case did not have any effect in the departmental enquiry. So, judgment and decree dated 27.07.2000 passed by the appellate court be set aside and the present appeal filed by the defendants be admitted on the substantial questions of law framed in the appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that enquiry was not properly conducted against the plaintiff and plaintiff was acquitted in the criminal case. The enquiry was also in relation to the same charge. So, two yardsticks cannot be applicable against the plaintiff. So, appellate court rightly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and rightly set aside the termination order of the plaintiff. So, present appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that plaintiff was acquitted in the criminal case. So, in my considered opinion, appellate court had not committed any error in setting aside the termination order of the plaintiff. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants 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 /66