Dismissed

Radhey Shyam Jangid v. Baroda Raj Gramin Bank and Ors.

Rajasthan HC27 May 2024CSA/118/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil regular appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the appellant failed to prove violation of natural justice or bias in the service inquiry. The civil suit was dismissed, and the second appeal was likewise dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed. The order is finalized.

Radhey Shyam Jangid Vs Baroda Raj Gramin Bank and… — Execution and Attachment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:48556]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 118/2014

¶4

Radheyshyam Jangid S/o Shri Harsahay Jangid, Mandavara Mahua Road, Distt. Dausa, Officer Headquarter Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Todaraisingh, Distt. Tonk Raj.

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank Through General Manager, Head Office, Sawai Madhopur Raj.

¶8

President, Head Office, Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank Sawai Madhopur Raj.

¶9

Board, Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Sawai Madhopur Through Its President Sawai Madhopur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Rahul Sharma and Mr. Utkarsh
	Goyal for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rupin Kala

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

27/05/2024

¶15

Instant appeal is preferred by appellant-plaintiff aggrieved from dismissal of civil regular appeal no.4/2007 on 05.09.2013 by learned District Judge, Karauli and affirming the judgment and decree of dismissal of civil suit no.38/1994 on 07.12.2006 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karauli.

¶16

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellantplaintiff an officer of respondent no.1 was served a charge-sheet on 01.09.1987 and after service of charge-sheet, the appellantplaintiff has demanded certain documents so as to file reply and

(2 of 11)

[2024:RJ-JP:48556]

[CSA-118/2014]

defend against the allegations made against the plaintiff. He also submitted that during inquiry, the plaintiff has made several representation to the defendants-respondents to provide him proper opportunity and documents to defend the charges made against him but defendants have neither supplied the documents as demanded by plaintiff nor gave an opportunity to defend himself against charge. He also submitted that the inquiry was conducted contrary to the principles of natural justice and after awarding sentence, the appeal was also not considered in accordance with law and no proper opportunity to defend and explain the conduct was granted to the appellant. He further submitted that the entire proceedings vitiated as the defendants have violated the principle of natural justice and the plaintiff has filed suit on the basis of violation of principle of natural justice. He further submits that despite the material and evidence, the Trial Court has misread the evidence and decided the issue against the appellant. He further submitted that the Appellate Court has also decided the appeal in mechanical manner without considering the material and judgments as referred by the appellant. He also submitted that the plaintiff has established that he demanded certain documents to defend the charges made against him but the defendants have not provided these documents to defend from the false allegations, therefore, in case of violation of principle of natural justice, it give rise to substantial question of law as suggested by appellant in para no.’S’ of memo of appeal.

¶21

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondents on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove

(3 of 11)

[2024:RJ-JP:48556]

[CSA-118/2014]

his case before the Trial Court and nowhere, it was established that any prejudice was caused to the appellant by any action of defendants-respondents. He also submitted that there is a concurrent findings of fact and there is no scope of interference in second appeal.

¶26

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the entire record.

¶27

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration stating interalia that the plaintiff was served a charge-sheet (memo) on 01.09.1987 levelling 15 charges against him, when plaintiff was working as Manager of respondent-bank at Kota. The plaintiff has demanded 107 documents but Inquiry Officer has declined inspection of all the documents but permitted inspection of 45 documents. The plaintiff has also made an application for providing him copies of the documents but same was also declined. The plaintiff has also made an application to appoint a lawyer to represent him in the inquiry but same was also rejected. The plaintiff stated that a defence nominee was appointed at the request of plaintiff in personal capacity. The plaintiff has further made an application for inspection and providing copies of documents but all of them were not allowed. The inquiry was concluded on 22.06.1988 and 23.06.1989, disciplinary authority has imposed different penalties. The plaintiff has filed an appeal against the punishment and after dismissal of appeal on 10.01.1991, a civil suit was filed before the Civil Court. On 07.12.2006, the civil suit was dismissed and the plaintiff has

(4 of 11)

[2024:RJ-JP:48556]

[CSA-118/2014]

filed appeal before the Appellate Court but same was also dismissed.

¶32

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Civil Judge has framed as many as six issues. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited 55 documents but no evidence was submitted by defendants.

¶33

After considering the evidence on record, learned Trial Court has decided issue nos.1 to 4 against the plaintiff but issue no.5 was not pressed and ultimately the Trial Court has dismissed the civil suit.

¶34

While considering the appeal, learned District Judge has affirmed the findings and issue nos.1 to 3 but set aside the finding on issue no.4 and found that the suit filed by plaintiff was within limitation.

¶35

A perusal of material placed on record clearly indicate that the entire suit was based on non-observance of principle of natural justice, which means the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants have not observed principle of fairness, reasonableness, equity and equality. The plaintiff has to establish that his inquiry was biased and proper or fair opportunity of hearing was not provided to him. The plaintiff has to establish that the decision of respondents was not based reasons rather it is on whims and fancies.

¶36

We have considered the evidence of PW1, and the admission of PW1 clearly shows that he was given opportunity to inspect some of the documents but was denied inspection for remaining documents. Similarly, he admitted that initially he did not filed any

(5 of 11)

[2024:RJ-JP:48556]

[CSA-118/2014]

application for inspection. PW1 has admitted that the defendants has only offered for inspection but they have not allowed him to take notes of the content of the document. The admission in cross-examination of PW1 also make it clear that the bank has offered him to appoint a defence nominee with condition that he should be from the bank only. The admission also make it clear that the PW1 did not disclosed about the documents inspected by him. The admission also indicate that opportunity of hearing was also afforded by the appellate board. PW1 has also admitted that the statements were recorded in his presence.

¶41

We have gone through the documents, particularly chargesheet Ex.1 wherein an opportunity to file written statement or defence was mentioned. The plaintiff has filed his written submissions and same was exhibited as Ex.4. We have considered other documents as submitted by plaintiff to the Inquiry Officer. The Trial Court has summoned the inquiry record from the bank and same is also available before us for perusal.

¶42

After considering the material placed on record, we have found that the appellant-plaintiff was afforded full opportunity of hearing during inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. Similarly, opportunity of hearing was also granted by the respondents at the time of consideration of appeal against sentence. The evidence of PW1 clearly suggested that he has fully participated in the inquiry and the statement of witnesses were recorded in his presence though one medical certificate was filed by him indicating his illness. The bank has also given him an opportunity to nominate any defence nominee from the bank. In any departmental proceeding,

(6 of 11)

[2024:RJ-JP:48556]

[CSA-118/2014]

appointment of a lawyer as defence nominee is not a right and herein no case is made out to show any kind of prejudice. Thus, the plaintiff was sufficient opportunity to defend and present his case.

¶47

The plaintiff has named some of the officer of respondent, who were prejudice towards him but in any service this is a common phenomena. No person can claim that the action is because of any prejudice of any particular Officer. Herein from the evidence of PW1, from material placed on record nowhere, it was established that the defendants or Inquiry Officer was biased or having prejudice in his mind while concluding the inquiry or recording finding against the appellant-plaintiff.

¶48

We have gone through the entire material on record and we cannot say that the sentence was awarded without any reason. The charge-sheet itself explained the grounds and there was no bias during inquiry and by inquiry order. The reasons were explained by the defendants while issuing charge-sheet to appellant. No allegation to establish discrimination was found proved from material on record.

¶49

Having considered the entire material on record, the Trial Court has decided issue nos.1 to 3 against the appellant and there is no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. These findings on issue nos.1 to 3 were also considered by the First Appellate Court and same were affirmed and upheld by the Appellate Court.

¶50

Having considered the fact that the suit was filed primarily for violation of principle of natural justice and from the material

[CSA-118/2014]

[2024:RJ-JP:48556]

(7 of 11)

placed on record, nowhere, it was established that the defendants-respondents have violated the principle of natural justice while issuing charge-sheet and conducting inquiry against the plaintiff. Similarly, no prejudice or violation of principle of natural justice was established while considering the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. Thus, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court.

¶55

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.

¶56

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:

¶57

"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

(8 of 11)

[2024:RJ-JP:48556]

[CSA-118/2014]

principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law."

¶62

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:

¶63

The jurisprudence on Section 100, CPC is rich and

¶64

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.

¶65

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.

¶66

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

(9 of 11)

[2024:RJ-JP:48556]

[CSA-118/2014]

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:

¶71

(i) The High Court would be justified in admitting the second appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved;

¶72

(ii) The substantial question of law to precisely state such question;

¶73

(iii) A duty has been cast on the High Court to formulate substantial question of law before hearing the appeal;

¶74

(iv) Another part of the section is that the appeal shall be heard only on that question.”

¶75

Gurdev Kaur (supra) was referred to and relied upon in Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. (2019) 17 SCC 71

(10 of 11)

[2024:RJ-JP:48556]

[CSA-118/2014]

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:

¶80

“a) The purpose of framing of substantial

¶81

question of law is to give the parties an opportunity to come prepared on that particular question.

¶82

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.

¶83

c) If any additional questions were framed at the time of hearing, the Court must hear the parties on that question as well.”

¶84