^ fc HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Appellants S. Appeal No. 122/2004 Purandar Patel, S/o Ramchandji Patel, aged about 60 years, Ex-Peon of District & Session Judge Raigarh, R/o Modi Malapara, Raigarh, Tahsil & District Ralgarh (C.G.). Govemment of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Raigarh. SCOND APPEAL U/S. 100 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. (SB :Hou'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.j^ Presenfc- Sl-sri Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate for fhe appellant. Shri U.K.S. Chandel, P.L. for the State/respondent. QRALJUDGBMENT (Passed on 30/09/3010) 1. By this second appeal under Section 100 of fhe Code of Civil Pi'ocedure, 1908 appellant has chaUenged the legafity and prosperity of the judgment and decree of dismissal of appeal dated 31/7/2003 passed by First Additional District Judge, Raigarh in civil appeal No. 80-A/2002 affirming fhe judgment and decree of dismissal of suit dated 30/9/2002 passed by Additional Civil Judge Clas§-I,Raigarh in civU suit No, 5-A/2002. 2. Leamed counsel for fhe parties are heard. 3. Judgment and clecree tmpugned of bofh the Courts below and record of both the Courts below peru'sed. 4. As per case of the appellant he was working as Govemment Servant m the ofiice of District Judge, Raigarh, his services was 3? #",•^- ^^ termmated after holding Departmental Enquuy by the competent authority which was challenged before fhe appeUate foruni i.e. Registrai' General which was dismissed then revision was preferred same was dismissed thereafter civU suit same was dismissed fhen judgment and decree was chaUenged before the lower appeUate Coiirt, lower appellate Court has also dismissed fhe appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in Departmental Enquiiy disciplinary aufhority has not compBed the procedure prescribed and has not provided opportunitv of heartng, Disciplinary aufhority and Enqmry Ofiicer were one and same. Present second appeal is required to be heard on foUowin^ substaatial questions oflaw:- (i)-"Whether both fhe Courts below werejustified iii case of Enquiry OfBcer and Discipltnary Aufhority one and '^7k<^*- same rendermgjustice would be possible?. (ii)-Whefher Disciplinary Authority had not foHowed the procedure prescribed?". 6. On the other hand, leamed Penal Lawyer for the State/respondent opposed the second appeal. 7. In case of exercising civil j-yrisdiction relating to discipltnar;' action the scope is very limited. CivU Court is reqiiired to see whefher fhere is a coniplete departiu'e from procediire prescribed but civil Court caanot sit as a appeUate forum. Discipliiiar^7 authority, ~. revisional authority, trial Court and lower appeUate Court has ;:ii;;-ilJ.: ':"' ^^^^^.^t •-••"-••••••• • • ^^_^^_^. i^^^^i^^s 'aB£3is;aia,a,(aSi"5.ii'" •i!.':.4")i,, taken the same view. Considering the concurrent flnding of disciplinary forum and both the Courts below; I do not find any substantial question of law for decision of this second appeal. Consequently, second appeal is liable to be disinissed and is hereby dismissed at fhe stage of motion heartng. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge