The central legal point established in the judgment is that where an enquiry has been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, a civil suit will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration that termination of service was illegal and consequences flowing therefrom.

JUDGMENT

Sudesh Bansal, J. - appellant-defendant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred as "RSRTC") has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, assailing judgment and decree dated 16.4.1994 in appeal No.224/1992 passed by additional District Judge, No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur affirming the judgment and decree dated 6.9.1991 passed by additional Civil Judge No.5, Jaipur City, in Civil Suit No.425/1989 whereby while termination order dated 20-2-1984 of respondent plaintiff (hereinafter "plaintiff") was declared as illegal, void and violative to principles of natural justice, he has also been declared entitle for back wages and monetary benefits from date of termination i.e. 20.2.1984.

2. The facts of case are that plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor on permanent basis but later on his services were terminated by defendant RSRTC vide order dated 20.2.1984. The termination was made on account of remarks against plaintiff that he was carrying passengers without tickets. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against termination order to appellate authority, who dismissed the appeal 18-8-1984. The review was filed, which too dismissed on 8-4-1987. Plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, challenging termination order dated 20.2.1984 as also order of appellate authority dated 18-8-1984 and review order dated 8.4.1987, alleging inter alia that his termination is stigmatic and he has been terminated from service without conducting any enquiry as also without giving any opportunity of hearing on alleged charges. Plaintiff prayed for declaring termination order and order of appellate authority as illegal and void and claimed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits and monetary benefits.

3. The RSRTC failed to file written statement, however, opposed the suit of plaintiff by contending that plaintiff was appointed as daily rated employee and his services were terminated, after serving the charge sheet and after affording opportunity of hearing, due enquiry was conducted before removal of plaintiff. Other objections as to the suit is barred by limitation and Civil Court does not have jurisdiction, were also raised.

4. The trial Court settled points of determination and recorded evidence of both parties. Plaintiff appeared as witness and produced documents to prove that his termination was illegal and was passed without conducting enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing, therefore, termination is ex facie illegal and in violation to principles of natural justice. Defendant examined Dw.1 Rakesh Kumar and exhibited termination order.

5. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record concluded that the termination of plaintiff from service is not simpliciter, but because of stigmatic remark. The trial Court observed that since termination of plaintiff is stigmatic and no enquiry was conducted, no opportunity of hearing was given, no principle of natural justice was followed, thus, impugned termination order is illegal and void. accordingly, the trial Court vide judgment dated 6-9-1991 allowed plaintiff's suit declaring the termination order and order of appellate authority as also of Reviewing authority as illegal and void. The trial Court directed to give monetary benefits to plaintiff from the date of filing of suit i.e. 30-5-1989.

6. Defendants preferred first appeal against judgment and decree of trial Court dated 6.9.1991, which was decided by appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.4.1994 and while upholding the judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff was held entitled to get backwages from the date of his termination i.e. 20.2.1984, hence, the RSRTC is in second appeal.

7. Learned counsel for appellant-defendant has argued that plaintiff was not a permanent employee, but was a daily rated employee, however, due enquiry was conducted before his termination. He has argued that suit for declaration filed by plaintiff on 30.05.1989, assailing termination order dat