JUDGMENT 1. - Mohd. Jaki, appellant, was conductor duly appointed by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') (respondent). While he was serving as Conductor, a bus in which he was performing his duty as Conductor, was inspected. The allegation against the appellant is that three passengers were found without ticket while he was performing his duty as Conductor during inspection of the bus; and further allegation was in respect of misbehaviour. An enquiry was conducted under Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers and Workshop Employees Standing Orders, 1965 (for breity 'the Standing Orders') against the appellant and after conclusion of the inquiry, his services were terminated on 5.11.1980 against which, he filed a civil suit before the trial Court. The suit was decreed but in appeal by the Corporation, it was dismissed. Hence this second appeal. 2. Main thrust to attack his termination from service was that the order terminating his services was in violation of clause 35 of the Standing Orders and in disregard to the principles of natural justice as neither the documents were made available to him nor he was given an opportunity to lead his defence nor inquiry officer's report was given to him prior to his termination. 3. The trial Court decread the suit of the plaintiff holding his termination as illegal and the plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages. The first appellate Court upon appeal by the Corporation reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On merits, the first appellate court found the findings of the trial court erroneous and thus it accepted the appeal of the Corporation. The first appellate Court also held that in the instant case, the observation of the principles of natural justice is not necessary because the appellant's services were on contract basis and in a case where the services are governed on contract the principle's of Natural Justice do not apply. 4. First contention on behalf of the appellant was that the first appellate court in holding that the principles of natural justice for giving a copy of the report and documents used against the delinquent (appellant)and affording an opportunity to lead his defence besides of being heard, were not necessarily required to be followed. 4. First contention on behalf of the appellant was that the first appellate court in holding that the principles of natural justice for giving a copy of the report and documents used against the delinquent (appellant)and affording an opportunity to lead his defence besides of being heard, were not necessarily required to be followed. Shri M. Rafiq on behalf of the appellant cited two decisions one in Om Prakash v. R.S.R.T.C., S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 13 of 1985 D/d. 13.11.1987 and in Ram Singh Rathore v. R.S.R.T.C. 1986 (1) Judicial Surveyor P. 129 Judicial Surveyor 1986 (1) Judicial Surveyor p. 129 Two decisions of the Supreme Court were also referred to by Shri Mohd. Raiq, K.L.Tripathi v. State Bank of India, 1984 (1) SCC P. 43 1984(1) SCC p.43 and Ram Kumar v. State of Harayana, 1987 Supp. SCC 582 5. On the other hand, main counter attack on behalf of the Corporation was that the order of termination cannot be questioned before the Civil Court and it could be challenged under the Industrial Disputes Act and so, the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the civil case. Shri R.R.L. Gupta on behalf of the Corporation further argued that the appellant has failed to point out as to what prejudice has been caused in case the principles of natural justice were not followed. 6. As against this, Shri Mohd. Rafiq on behalf of the appellant also cited a decision of this Court in Chhitar Singh v. R.S.R.T.C., S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 172/1984 decided on March 29, 1991 7. As regards the question of jurisdiction of a civil court, this question stands settled by a decision of the Division Bench of this court in R.S.R.T.C. v. Kaluram, D.B.Civil Second Appeal No. 213 of 1983 wherein the Single Bench had referred such a question arisen in 29 appeals to the Division Bench which vide its judgment dated the 3rd April, 1987 answered the question as under: "That the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit since it falls within the ambit of principle 2 laid down in Premier Automobile's case ( AIR 1975 SC 2238 )" 8. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court (supra) stands confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in a special appeal having been filed by the Corporation in that case Spl. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court (supra) stands confirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in a special appeal having been filed by the Corporation in that case Spl. Leave (Civil) to Appeal No. 9386/87 decided on 19.10.1987 which has been referred by this Court in Chhitar Singh's case (supra). 9. Now I advert to the question of observance of the principle of natural justice. In this regard, it has been observed in Om Prakash v. R.S.R.T.C. (supra), as under : "In fact the totality of the circumstances in the instant case had to be gone into and the meaning of the word 'considered' ought to have been taken note of in that light. It is now well settled that all stages of the Departmental Enquiry the delinquent has right to have a fair opportunity of placing his case before the enquiry officer. Besides, this clause 35(6)(c) of the standing orders also requires a consideration by the disciplinary authority." In Ram Singh Rathore v. R.S.R.T.C. (supra), this Court observed as under: "When an incumbent is found guilty and statute gives him a right of appeal it is natural that the person should be supplied with the copy of the report of the enquiry officer so that he can know as to what has been found against him and he can examine whether that finding is right or not. This would enable him to prefer the appeal effectively. Simply because in the Standing Orders such provision does not find place, it is not a valid defence to commit breach of principles of natural justice. The sweep of natural justice is too wide and it can be read consistently with Standing Orders." (emphasis added). 10. In K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India (supra), the Apex Court held that in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences against an officer or an employee of Statutory Corporations there must be an investigation in to the charges consistent with the requirements of the situation in accordance with the principles of natural justice as far as these were applicable to a particular situation. Even their Lordships of the Supreme Court agreed to the contention that even if the party had bound himself by the contract, as he had accepted the Rules, there cannot be any contract with a Statutory Corporation which is violative of the principles of natural justice in matters of domestic enquiry involving termination of service of an employee. 11. Lending the view from the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan ( AIR 1991 SC 471 ) , may state that the disciplinary inquiry is a quasi-judicial in nature because there is a charge and a denial followed by an inquiry at which evidence is led and assessment of the material before conclusion is reached, as has been done in the case at hand. And, these facts attract the principles of natural justice. 12. Having benefitted by the enlightments derived from the decisions (ut supra), I am of the opinion that the cases referred to and cited by Mr. Mohd. Rafiq on behalf of the appellant are totally applied to the case at hand and I am in total agreement with the view taken by this court in Ram Singh Rathore v. R.S.R.T.C. (supra) that merely because there is no provision in Standing Orders for supplying enquiry report it is no valid defence to commit breach of principles of natural justice. I add lending support from the view taken in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramjan Khan (supra) that in a quasi-judicial matter, if the delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching his conclusions, rules of natural justice would certainly be affected. 13. In the case at hand, it is not disputed rather admitted that no documents have been supplied to the appellant despite his persistent requests. On behalf of the Corporation, Enquirty Officer (DWI) appearing in the witness box stated that he has not supplied the document to the appellant. No other witness has been examined by the Corporation. The trial court arrived at the conclusion that the documents have not been supplied to the appellant and as such the prejudice has caused to him. Even it stressed that Ex. 1 to EX.10 documents have been produced before it but it is not clear that they have been supplied to the appellant. The trial court arrived at the conclusion that the documents have not been supplied to the appellant and as such the prejudice has caused to him. Even it stressed that Ex. 1 to EX.10 documents have been produced before it but it is not clear that they have been supplied to the appellant. That apart, in the written statement it has not been stated that material documents were supplied to the appellant in the inquiry proceedings and its case was that there was no statutory duty on the Corporation to have supplied the documents to the delinquent. 14. Having benefitted by the enlightments derived from the record and admission wrung out from the evidence of the inquiry officer and the material on record, it is precisely clear that the plaintiff was not either supplied with the copies of the documents used against him though it was made available to the punishing authority or the result of the enquiry along with conclusions and recommendations or an opportunity of being heard. In this view of the matter, the findings arrived at by the trial Court deserves to be restored and confirmed. 15. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed; the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court are set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are restored. The suit of the plaintiff shall stand decreed as per the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.There will be no order as to costs.Appeal Allowed. *******