H. K. RATHOD, J.

Heard learned A.G.P. Ms. Mathur appearing on behalf of appellant-State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia appearing on behalf of respondent-Shri Jamal Mahammed Ismail Bloch.

2. In this Second Appeal, following substantial question of law has been formulated by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. M. Mehta) while admitting matter on 28-4-2006 :

"1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower Court was right in law in dismissing Regular Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1994 under which the judgment and decree declaring the plaintiff's dismissal vide order dated 29-3-1985 is illegal, null, void and inoperative.

2. Whether the decree passed by the learned trial Judge and as confirmed in appeal is vitiated in law on the question of jurisdiction?

3. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the suit and whether the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal would have jurisdiction?"

3. Thereafter, on 5-7-2006 this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Justice A. M. Kapadia) has passed following order in Civil Application No. 10131 of 2005.

"1. By filing this application, applicants/appellants have prayed to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the judgment and order passed by the learned 3rd Assistant Judge, Junagadh, rendered in Regular Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1994 on the grounds stated in the application.

2. Having heard Mr. K. L. Pandya, learned Advocate of the applicants/appellants and Ms. Sejal K. Mandavia, learned Advocate of the Opponent and a perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, and since Second Appeal No. 225 of 2005 has been admitted by this Court vide order dated 28-4-2006 by formulating substantial questions of law, if the prayer made in this application is not granted, it would amount to dismissing the Second Appeal without adjudicating the contention raised therein.

3. In aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be stayed till pendency of the Second Appeal.

4. For the foregoing reasons, the application succeeds, and accordingly, it is allowed. The prayer in terms of Para 4(A) is granted, which shall remain operative till decision of the Second Appeal. Rule is made absolute.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances emerging from the record of the case, Second Appeal No. 225 of 2005 is ordered to be expedited."

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and decree dated 24-3-1994 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 321 of 1985 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junagadh, present appellant had filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1994, which was decided on 18-10-2004 and against that judgment and decree, appellant has preferred present Second Appeal. Trial Court has set aside dismissal order dated 29-3-1985 and also directed present appellant not to implement dismissal order against plaintiff and it was also directed to present appellant to reinstate plaintiff within 30 days with all back wages, which were required to be paid within 3 (Three) months from date of judgment and decree. Regular Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1994 was filed on 16-12-1994 and it was decided on 18-10-2004 vide Exh. 22, whereby lower Appellate Court dismissed said appeal, which was preferred by appellants.

5. Brief facts of present appeal are as under :

5.1. Plaintiff was serving as Forest Guard at Ramnath Round in Mojaria Bit and at the time of his service tenure about 980 trees were illegally cut down. Hence, to fix responsibility of respondent, a departmental inquiry was carried on by Special Officer of Rajkot. He inquired into the matter and believed that charges are proved against plaintiff. According to appellant, in inquiry, appellant had given ample opportunity to respondent and on 29-3-1985, dismissal order was passed by present appellant.

5.2. According to appellant, plaintiff had failed to carry out his duties to protect forest area and also failed to comply with his duty, therefore, departmental inquiry was held. There was an allegation