The central legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of employment must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the opportunity for a hearing, and that civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits challenging illegal terminations.

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 29.1.1999 in appeal No.291/1986 passed by additional District Judge, No.2, ajmer affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.12.1985 passed by additional Munsif Magistrate ajmer City (East) in Civil Suit No.178/1982 whereby while termination order of respondent plaintiff (hereinafter "plaintiff") was declared as null and void.

2. The facts of case are that plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor on permanent basis but on 17-6-1982 while he was on duty at Bus No.1065, the vehicle was inspected by the vigilance squad of RSRTC and he was booked for offences of carrying three passengers without issuing tickets, although fair had already been received and pocketed by him. On the criminal charges, he was tried before the Judicial Magistrate (Traffic) ajmer who punished the plaintiff for ten days simple imprisonment. On the basis of his conviction, he was terminated on 17-6-1982 itself. Copy of order was not provided and services of plaintiff were terminated by defendant RSRTC without providing opportunity of hearing and in violation of Order 35 of the Standing Orders of RSRTC. Plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, on 18-6-1982 under apprehension that he may be removed and prayed for temporary injunction, if he has been terminated, thus challenging termination order dated 17-6-1982 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. Plaintiff prayed for declaring his termination order as illegal and void and claimed for permanent injunction.

3. The RSRTC filed written statement contending that plaintiff was not on duty while he filed suit nor he was permanent employee. On inspection by the vigilance team, he was found guilty as three passengers were found without tickets and he was punished for imprisonment of ten days simple imprisonment. Other objections as to the jurisdiction of Civil Court were also raised.

4. The trial Court settled issues and recorded evidence of both parties. Plaintiff appeared as witness and produced documents to prove that his termination was stigmatic 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. No evidence was adduced in rebuttal by RSRTC.

5. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record concluded that the termination of plaintiff from service is not simpliciter, but because of punishment. 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 allowed plaintiff's suit declaring the termination order as illegal and void.

6. Defendants preferred first appeal against judgment and decree of trial Court, which was dismissed by appellate Court vide judgment dated 29.1.1999 and judgment of trial court was affirmed, 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, therefore, no enquiry was necessary and no termination order was challenged in the suit, however, courts below have declared the termination order as void. He has argued that civil court was not having jurisdiction to try and decided the suit.

Counsel for defendant RSRTC has also submitted that after dismissing appeal by first appellate court the respondent plaintiff was reinstated in service on 2-9-1999, subject to decision of appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiff has also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.

8. This