JUDGMENT 1. :- This is a second appeal having been filed against the judgment of the Addl. District Judge No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur who confirmed the judgment of the trial Court in a civil suit which was decreed quashing and setting aside the order of the appellants Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the Corporation") whereby the plaintiff had been terminated from service w.e.f. 1.7.83. 2. The facts, briefly stated are that undisputedly the plaintiff (Durga Shanker) was appointed on the post of Conductor after having been regularly selected by the Selection Committee of the Appellants Corporation on 4.11.82 and consequently he had also undertaken the requisite training for one mc,nth. Accordingly he was given regular appointment vide order dated 15.6.83 firstly on probation for a period of one year. However, by order dated 1.7.83 his services were terminated on a report alleging that on 26.6.83 while he was on duty as Conductor in bus No.4036 on a route to Chittorgarh, upon inspection made by Shri Dinesh & Shri Acharya, 11 passengers were found having been travelling without ticket and not issuing tickets by him to them even after charging its fare. The plaintiff's case was that his termination from service was based on only aforesaid report and charge but no opportunity of hearing 'A-as given against that report; no inquiry was conducted; and therefore, his termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice and against the anons of service law as procedure prescribed in service law has not been followed before terminating the plaintiffs service. The plaintiff had also preferred his appeal against his termination but his appeal was also rejected on 27.10.84. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed civil suit for declaration against the order of his termination which was upheld in departmental appeal. In the plaint the plaintiff pleaded that the impugned order of his termination was against the provisions of the Standing Orders of the appellant Corporation because for the allegation he was not given any charge sheet and opportunity of hearing inasmuch as no notice for terminating his services was given 'co him nor any salary in lieu of notice was given before terminating his services and that apart persons junior to him were retained in service discriminating him. 3. 3. In written statement, the defendant Corporation contended that the plaintiff was Conductor on probation and as per condition No.3 in his appointment order, in case of any complaint for any irregularity committee, his services were required to be dispensed with without any inquiry and therefore there was no illegality in termination of the plaintiff's service. Objections as to jurisdiction of the civil court and valuation of the court fee having been filed in deficit, were also raised by the defendant Corporation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed. The plaintiff in support of his case himself appeared in witness box as PW1. Sufficient opportunity was afforded to the defendant Corporation to lead evidence but no witness on its behalf was examined and consequently, its evidence was dosed on 28.11.90. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court deciding issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and issue Nos. 2 & 3 against the defendant vide judgment dated 6.3.93, decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring defendant's order No.886 dated 1.7.83 and consequent order dated 27.10.84 passed in appeal as illegal, void ab initio and against the principles of natural justice and accordingly quashed the impugned orders and issued the declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to remain in service of the Corporation and further entitled to get all admissible and payable monetary benefits from the date of his termination regularly which are admissible in service. Against the trial Court's judgment dated 6.3.93 the defendants preferred first appeal which came to be dismissed by the first appellate court vide its judgment dated 26.7.96. Hence, this appeal. 5. Shri R.D. Rastogi contended that both the courts below erred in law in holding that no opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiff during the course of the departmental inquiry and that if there was no provision for issuing second show cause notice before imposing penalty, even then for the sake of principles of natural justice, it was incumbent upon the appellants to provide copy of the inquiry report before imposing the penalty alongwith second show cause notice. 6. Against the aforesaid contention of Shri Rastogi, Mr. Usman Khan learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is a case where no inquiry was conducted by the appellants Corporation. 7. 6. Against the aforesaid contention of Shri Rastogi, Mr. Usman Khan learned counsel for the respondent contended that it is a case where no inquiry was conducted by the appellants Corporation. 7. After having perused the impugned judgments of both the courts below, I find that under issue No.1, the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below are that it is a case where no inquiry was conducted before dispensing with service of the plaintiff and principles of natural justice have been totally given go bye as in the impugned order of termination (Ex.P.2) there has been allegation against the plaintiff of having allowed 11 passengers without tickets which comes within the definition of misconduct under Section 34 Standing Orders for which under Section 35 of the Standing Orders, principles of natural justice are required to be followed by conducting departmental inquiry, which in case of the plaintiff has not been conducted and therefore, the order of termination (Ex.P.2) in my considered view was rightly held to be illegal and not sustainable in law. The courts below have rightly held that though the plaintiff was on probation and his probation could be terminated under Section 13 of the Standing Orders but Section 13 of the Standing Orders has been held ultravires by this Court in the decision in Bhanwarlal Vs. R.S.R.T.C. & Anr. ( 1984 RLR 619 ) . Thus viewed, the contention of Shri Rastogi urged before this Court is totally fallacious and against the concurrent findings of fact based on cogent reasons. Since it is a case where no inquiry was conducted, what to talk of giving second show cause notice and supply of a copy of inquiry report and that apart, the courts below have not at all held the impugned orders illegal either because of having not issued second show cause notice or supply of copy of the inquiry report, but because of having not conducted any inquiry and not afforded an opportunity of hearing before dispensing with his services. 8. 8. As regards objection as to the jurisdiction of Civil Court for the issue at hand, raised by Shri Rastogi, I am of considered view that both the courts below have concurrently held in a right perspective on the basis of the decisions of the Apex Court in U.P. State Transport Corporation vs. Muniruddin ( 1990(4) SCC 464 ) that the civil court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the issue raised by the plaintiff for his civil rights. Similarly under Issue No.3, the courts below have rightly held that in view of the decision of this Court in R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mohanlal Khandelwal ( 1985 RLR 866 ) , since the plaintiff has sought declaration of his termination as illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice, he is entitled to consequential relief without court fees and consequently the objection was held to be untenable. 9. In my considered view the first appellate court has rightly held the suit within limitation because after the termination having been passed on 1.7.83, the plaintiff preferred his departmental appeal which was dismissed on 27.10.84 and both the orders of termination dated 1.7.83 and consequential dismissal of his appeal have been challenged seeking declaration in a suit filed within three years, on 6.5.87. 10. I do not find any error of law in the concurrent findings of fact and law arrived at by both the courts below and the contentions urged at the bar do not involve any substantial questions of law so as to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code and the conclusions arrived by the courts below do not warrant any interference therefore, this second appeal must fail and deserves to be dismissed.As a result of the discussion made above, this appeal is dismissed summarily.Appeal Dismissed. *******