The main legal point established in the judgment is that a civil suit challenging a dismissal order and appeal rejection order can be maintainable before the Civil Court, and that the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits including full back wages, seniority, and continuity in service.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant first appeal, filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant-plaintiff had been a delinquent employee of the Rajasthan State Bharat Scout & Guide (R.S.B.S.G), who was served with a charge-sheet dated 01.12.2008 and after conducting inquiry under the Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter “CCA Rules”), he was removed from service vide Order dated 14.07.2009, which was challenged by the employee before the Appellate Authority but his departmental appeal too was dismissed vide Order dated 12.11.2009, thereafter, he instituted the present civil suit challenging both orders and for seeking his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits of back wages, seniority and continuity in service. His Civil suit No.06/2010 has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide judgment and decree dated 11.05.2011 and thereagainst he has preferred the instant first appeal.

2. Facts of the present case as culled out from record and which are necessary for decision of the instant first appeal, are as under :-

2.1 The civil suit was instituted on 18.12.2009, alleging inter alia that plaintiff was appointed as Assistant Organization Commissioner (AOC) on 03.12.1980 and had served for more than two decades, and his entire service career remained clean and unblemished without any adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) or any charge-sheet, except the one under consideration. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 01.12.2008 levelling eight charges against him. He submitted detailed reply to each charge. Before filing reply, he demanded documents time and again, but no documents were supplied to him and in absence of such documents, appellant was without any defence and his right to defence was marred. It was pleaded that before the Inquiry Officer, the plaintiff requested to call for documents for his defence but no documents were called. The admission denial of documents were not made and without any evidence or witness, documents submitted by the department were held proved against plaintiff.

2.2 It was alleged that inquiry was conducted in complete violation to Rule 16 of CCA Rules and the punishment order for removal from service has been passed arbitrarily, illegally and maliciously. It was averred that thereafter, the plaintiff was provided documents under the Right to Information Act and he challenged the dismissal order dated 14.07.2009, by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority along with entire documents in support of his defence, but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 12.11.2009, without considering documents and without giving complete and proper hearing, therefore, the rejection order of appeal passed by the Appellate Authority too is violative to Rule 30(2) of the CCA Rules.

2.3 Plaintiff averred that the dismissal order dated 14.7.2009 and the appeal rejection order dated 12.11.2009, are against the principles of natural justice and the same are malicious and violative to the mandatory procedure of Rules 16 & 30 of the CCA Rules, as such liable to be set aside. Plaintiff also pleaded that charges, levelled against him, are old, stale and belated. The GF & AR Rules were not applicable prior to December 1998, still charges were held proved, for not following the GF & AR Rules and without evidence. It was averred that plaintiff has arbitrarily and illegally been removed from service, therefore, he be reinstated immediately and granted all consequential benefits including back wages, seniority and all benefits treating him to be continued in service.

2.4 On issuing notice, defendants filed written statement raising preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court as the plaintiff has not claimed any of his civil rights, and orders passed after conducting departmental inquiry can be challenged only before th