JUDGMENT : DEOKI NANDAN, J. 1. The Respondent filed three suits in the court of Munsif Havali, Varanasi being suits Nos. 225, 226 and 227 of 1966. In the first suit the relief claimed was for a declaration that the order dated 27th of July, 1963 imposing a penalty for recovery of Rs. 846/ 12 P. from the Plaintiff's salary is not binding on him being illegal, unequitable, and contrary to law and that the Defendant is not entitled to recover the said amount from the Plaintiff. Similar declarations were claimed in the second and the third suits with respect to orders dated 12th May, 1965 for recovery of Rs. 305/40 P. and dated 27th July, 1963 for the recovery of Rs. 428/12 P. respectively. The trial court dismissed all the three suits which were tried together. The lower appellate court has decreed them on the finding that there was no material before the authority on the basis of which any reasonable man could come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was responsible for the shortage of any material with which the Plaintiff was charged. 2. The Plaintiff was a railway servant. At the relevant time when the events took place the Discipline and Appeal Rules for railway servants enforced with effect from 1st of August, 1961 and printed in Volume I of the Indian Railway Establishment Code as Paragraphs 1701 to 1738, were undisputably applicable to him. The relevant rule for imposition of minor penalties like the one imposed on the Plaintiff was the one contained in paragraph 1716. The rule does not require the holding of any enquiry or the taking of any evidence or the giving of any opportunity of oral hearing to the railway servant. It was not suggested in the present case that the Plaintiff was not informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and the allegations on which it was proposed to do so and given an opportunity to make a representation against the same. 3. Mr. D. Sanyal, the learned Counsel for the Railway Administration, relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shadi Lal Gupta Vs. 3. Mr. D. Sanyal, the learned Counsel for the Railway Administration, relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shadi Lal Gupta Vs. State of Punjab, and submitted that in the circumstances the impugned order could not have been challenged at all before the Civil Court and that at any rate not on the ground which found favour with the lower appellate court. 4. It cannot be disputed that the Civil Court was not sitting as a court of appeal, nor did it have any supervisory or revisional jurisdiction over the acts of the disciplinary authority. In a case like the present one the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited. The dispute before the Civil Court is not a dispute between the Plaintiff and the disciplinary authority but between the Plaintiff and his employer which is the Union of India. The employer proposed to make certain deductions from the Plaintiff's salary and for doing so relied on an order passed by a disciplinary authority appointed in accordance with the rules which have force of law and in this way relied on the legal force of that order for making a deduction from the salary of the Plaintiff. The Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction to set aside or to revise the order as a court of appeal or revision. All that it can do is to see whether the order was passed by an authority competent to do so and whether the authority did not exceed its jurisdiction in passing that order. The Civil Court could not go into the question whether the order was right or wrong and only such errors of law could be seen as affected the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority. Occasionally even an erroneous decision on a question of fact also could be gone into provided it is shown that by arriving at that wrong decision the authority assumed jurisdiction which it did not possess. 5. The lower appellate court could not have gone into the question whether the order passed by the disciplinary authority in this case was right or wrong or suffered from any error of law on the ground that it was based on no material. 6. In the result all the three appeals succeed and are allowed with costs. 5. The lower appellate court could not have gone into the question whether the order passed by the disciplinary authority in this case was right or wrong or suffered from any error of law on the ground that it was based on no material. 6. In the result all the three appeals succeed and are allowed with costs. The judgment and decrees of the lower appellate court in all the three cases are set aside and the decrees of the trial court dismissing the three suits shall stand restored with costs throughout.