CSA-108/08 -Harjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.15.9.08 1/2 S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.108/2008 Harjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 15th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. G.R. Goyal for the appellant. --------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This second appeal has been filed against a concurrent finding of two courts below. By order dated 13.2.2008, the learned appellate court upheld the judgment of learned trial court dated 27.7.2006 and both the courts below found that the orders passed by Irrigation Authorities i.e. Executive Engineer (Divisional Engineer) and Superintending Engineer in appellate jurisdiction under Rule 33 finding that the plaintiff was guilty of committing theft of water for irrigation of his fields and, therefore, penalty at 20 times of the charges due from the plaintiff was levied by the Superintending Engineer. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that without holding complete enquiry into the matter, the authorities below could not impose said penalty and moreover the said penalty could be imposed only by the Executive Engineer and not by the Superintending Engineer for the first time. He further submits that in the FIR filed by the departmental authorities against the plaintiff for alleged theft of water has not resulted in any conviction of the plaintiff and, therefore, it was not established that he committed any CSA-108/08 -Harjeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Judgment dt.15.9.08 2/2 theft of water. 4. Having heard learned counsel and a perusal of the impugned orders indicates that no substantial questions of law arises in the present matter for consideration by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. A perusal of impugned orders not only indicates that the departmental authorities had passed the impugned orders after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-plaintiff but also it cannot be gainsaid that the appellate authority i.e. Superintending Engineer had no power to impose such penalty. The power of appellate authority is always concurrent to that of adjudicating authority and even if no penalty was imposed by the Executive Engineer, it could always be imposed by the higher authority depending upon the material before him. The learned courts below have also found that the authorities concerned had imposed the said penalty after proper enquiry into the matter and appreciating the evidence before them, the two courts below have given findings of fact which do not give rise to any substantial question of law. 5. The second appeal is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.11 babulal/-