SA/201/2007 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 201 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus JADEJA DILUBHA JAMUBHA - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR GK RATHOD for Defendant(s) : 1, MR MUKESH H RATHOD for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 25/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.08.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge and SA/201/2007 2/7 JUDGMENT Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Rajkot in Regular Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1994 whereby, the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1994 passed by the learned 3rd Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot in Regular Civil Suit No. 1053 of 1994 was confirmed. 2.0 The facts in brief leading rise to the filing of the present appeal are as under; 2.1 The respondent, original plaintiff, is serving as a Conductor at the City Depot, Rajkot, which is being managed by the appellant – Corporation. The respondent was served with a charge-sheet dated 12.09.1986 by the appellants alleging that on 14.05.1986 the respondent had misbehaved with one passenger. The respondent replied to the said charge-sheet vide reply dated 19.11.1986. 2.2 Being dissatisfied by the said reply, the appellant – Corporation initiated departmental inquiry against the respondent. On completion of the inquiry, the respondent was served with a SA/201/2007 3/7 JUDGMENT show-cause Notice dated 22.05.1987 calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the service. 2.3 On having come to know that a decision to dismiss the respondent from service has been taken by the appellants, the respondent filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 551 of 1987 challenging the validity of the inquiry and the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. 2.4 However, the said suit was dismissed by the Civil Court on the technical ground that the suit was premature since no final order with respect to the dismissal of the respondent from service has been passed by the appellants. While passing the above order, the Court also observed that any order of dismissal or any other punishment, which may be passed, shall not be implemented for a period of fifteen days. 2.5 However, subsequently, vide order dated 04.09.1987, the respondent came to be dismissed from the service. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred a suit SA/201/2007 4/7 JUDGMENT being Regular Civil Suit No. 1053 of 1994 before the Court of learned Jt. Civil Judge (S.D.), Rajkot. The trial Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent and held that the departmental inquiry and the subsequent order of dismissal passed by the appellants were bad in law and illegal. 2.6 Against the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1994 before the Court of learned Addl. District Judge and Presiding Officer, Rajkot. The lower appellate Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this second appeal. 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The only contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellants is that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the departmental proceedings and the subsequent order of dismissal passed by a competent authority. The said contention raised by the appellants SA/201/2007 5/7 JUDGMENT does not hold any ground in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan S.R.T.C. & Ors. v. Mohar Singh reported in 2008(3) S.C. Pg. 230 wherein, it has been held that a Civil Court may have a limited jurisdiction in service matters and it may not sit in appeal over the order passed in disciplinary proceedings or on the quantum of punishment imposed and it may also not direct reinstatement in service having regard to Section 14(1)(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. But, it cannot be said to have no jurisdiction at all to entertain a suit and it is trite that where the right is claimed by the plaintiff in terms of a common law or under a statute, other than the one which created a new right for the first time and when a forum has also been created for enforcing the said right, the Civil Court shall also have jurisdiction to entertain a suit where the plaintiff claim benefit of a fundamental right, as adumbrated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India or mandatory provisions of statute or statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of service. 4.0 In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the order of dismissal came to be passed after the suit being Civil Suit No. 551 SA/201/2007 6/7 JUDGMENT of 1987 preferred by the respondent challenging the validity of the departmental inquiry and the order of dismissal that may be passed by the appellant – Corporation was dismissed on the technical ground of being premature. Therefore, ultimately, when the order of dismissal dated 04.09.1987 came to be passed, a right shall accrue on the respondent to choose a forum vis-a-vis the common law before which he desires to redress his grievances. 5.0 Having gone through the record, it is evident that the action on the part of the appellant – authority is violative of the mandatory requirements of a statute or the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, in such case, the Civil Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the principle laid down in Rajasthan S.R.T.C. Case (supra). 6.0 In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the Court below was completely justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree. I am in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. SA/201/2007 7/7 JUDGMENT 7.0 For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is dismissed. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*