Honble MADAN, J.–By way of the instant appeal, Ghanshyam appellant-plaintiff herein has challenged the judgment & decree dated 27.11.1989 of the Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the judgment & decree dated 28.1.1980 of the Munsiff Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur has been affirmed and plaintiffs suit was dismissed. (2). The plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit for declaration challenging the impugned order of punishment dt. 4.8.1971 and order of appellate authority dt. 22.9.1973. By the impugned order of punishment, the plaintiff-appellant who was discharging the duties as Tehsildar, was charged with certain financial irregularities committed by him in discharge of his duties, on the basis of a complaint filed against him. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dt. 16.4.1969 passed by the disciplinary authority. Charge sheet was issued under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the ``CCA Rules) to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed an enquiry. The enquiry was conducted by the Addl. District Magistrate Kota. The charges were proved against the plaintiff and accordingly he was punished with stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect and it was also held that during suspension period the plaintiff was entitled only to the subsistence allowance and other dues admissible to the petitioner i.e. salary and allowance for suspension period were directed to be forfeited to the State Exchequer. The order of punishment was challenged by the plaintiff in appeal preferred before the State Government, which upheld the order of punishment and dismissed his appeal by order dt. 22.9.1973, against which the plaintiff filed a declaratory suit inter-alia on the averments that the orders of punishment of both the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority were both not sustainable in the eyes of law being not in conformity with requirement of law as they were not speaking orders because they did not assign reasons which impelled the disciplinary authority for imposing punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect. (3). In their written statement, the defendants denied the averments made in the plaint. It is contended on their behalf inter-alia that an ample opportunity of defending himself and of being heard was given to the plaintiff during inquiry proceedings inasmuch as, all the documents sought by the plaintiff were not only got inspected but also furnished to him. (3). In their written statement, the defendants denied the averments made in the plaint. It is contended on their behalf inter-alia that an ample opportunity of defending himself and of being heard was given to the plaintiff during inquiry proceedings inasmuch as, all the documents sought by the plaintiff were not only got inspected but also furnished to him. It was also contended on their behalf that the imputations of the charge were crystal clear and specifically based on material on record and not ambiguous and that apart, charge sheet was issued by competent authority under the CCA. Rules. According to the defendants, the suit was time barred and the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. (4). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed following issues- (1) Whether charge sheet dt. 12.5.1969 on the basis of which disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the plaintiff was non-est and void, illegal being issued maliciously and without jurisdiction? (2) Whether there is deficit court fees? (3) Whether suit was barred by limitation? (4) Whether the notice sent U/Sec. 80 CPC by the plaintiff was in accordance with law? (5) Relief.? Plaintiff, besides examining himself as PW 1 produced documents Ex. 1 to Exh. 3. Defendants examined Fateh Singh DW 1 and produced documents Exh. A/1 to Exh. A/15. (5). The onus to prove issue Nos. 2 to 4 was on the defendants. Issue No. 2 was not pressed on behalf of the defendants. Under Issue No. 3 and No. 4, the trial court held that the defendants failed to prove these issues and therefore the plaintiffs suit was held to be within limitation and notice u/Sec. 80 CPC was also held to be in accordance with law. Thus, Issue Nos. 2 to 4 were decided against the defendants. (6). However, issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff on the basis of which his suit was dismissed by the trial Court by its judgment dt. 28.1.1980. The plaintiff then went in appeal against the dismissal of suit before the appellate court. In first appeal the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court by its judgment dt. 27.11.1989. Hence, this second appeal. (7). 28.1.1980. The plaintiff then went in appeal against the dismissal of suit before the appellate court. In first appeal the First Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court by its judgment dt. 27.11.1989. Hence, this second appeal. (7). After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage itself and considered their rival contentions, and also having examined the relevant material on record with reference to the legal position as well, the questions of law, which do arise for consideration by this Court in this second appeal are formulated as under- (1) Whether it is open to the appellant to challenge concurrent findings which have been recorded by two courts below on proper appreciation of evidence on record particularly when the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration an over all view of the matter and had found the plaintiff appellant guilty of the impugned charges of having committed financial irregularity as alleged in the memo of charge sheet? (2) Whether the order of punishment has not been passed by the competent authority namely Chairman Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer who is duly empowered in exercise of its powers as specified in part 111 and Rule 15(1) of the CCA Rules? (3) Whether the order of punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect which was affirmed by the appellate authority (State Government) in appeal is open to challenge merely on the ground that no reasons have been assigned in the manner as so alleged? (4) Whether it is open to the appellant to challenge the finding of the aforesaid two authorities particularly when the appellant was given due opportunity of hearing and even on principles of natural justice it would be fallacious to arrive at contrary decision that the impugned order of punishment suffers from vice of being non-speaking particularly when on proper appreciation of evidence, it was found by the said authorities that the appellant was guilty of the charges of grave financial irregularities? (8). In support of contentions advanced at the bar, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court inter alia- Siemens Engineering Co. vs. Union of India (1), Mahabir Auto Stores vs. Indian Oil Corporation (2), Hemendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (3) (Rajasthan High Court), and Karan Singh vs. Union of India (4) (Rajasthan High Court). vs. Union of India (1), Mahabir Auto Stores vs. Indian Oil Corporation (2), Hemendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (3) (Rajasthan High Court), and Karan Singh vs. Union of India (4) (Rajasthan High Court). (9). In Siemens Engineering Co.s case (supra), the question which had arisen for consideration before the Apex Court in an appeal was as to whether the custom authorities were justified in imposing import duty chargeable on Pot motors when imported separately from Rayon Spinning frames, and whether do they fall within Item 72(3) or Item 73(21) of the First Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff under the Tariff Act 1934? The order of the customs authority was assailed on the ground that proceedings before the Assistant Collector arising from the notices demanding payment of differential duty were quasi judicial ones and so also were the proceedings in revision before the Collector and the Government of India. Before the Apex Court, indeed it was not disputed and, therefore, it was observed that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi judicial function it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. However, it was not suggested that the Collector should pass an elaborate order. It is essential that the administrative authority and the Tribunal should afford fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be effected by orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them and then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi judicial function would be able to justify their existence and carry credibility in the adjudicatory process. (10). I have also perused other decisions cited (supra) at the bar. In my humble view, ratio of the aforesaid decisions are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not the case of the appellant that he was not given fair and proper hearing either by the Enquiry authority or disciplinary authority or appellate authority before the imposition of penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect was passed against him. The only contention of the appellant is that the orders imposing punishment under the CCA Rules for the stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect was passed and confirmed without giving any reasons in support thereof and as a consequence thereof he had been deprived of opportunity of hearing. (11). The only contention of the appellant is that the orders imposing punishment under the CCA Rules for the stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect was passed and confirmed without giving any reasons in support thereof and as a consequence thereof he had been deprived of opportunity of hearing. (11). I have carefully perused the findings arrived at by the trial court as well as the first appellate Court on the clinching issue No. 1. The learned trial Court after having considered the evidence of the plaintiff so also the defendant found that from letter Ex.A. 4, which the plaintiff has admitted to have received, and the oral testimony of DW 1 Fateh Singh it stood proved that the plaintiff was afforded sufficient opportunity to inspect the record. Rather letters (Exs. A 10, A. 11, A.12, A.13, A.14 & A.15) establish that, persistent chances were given to the plaintiff to appear in the inquiry proceedings but he failed to appear and take benefit of those chances so as to tender any evidence in his defence. As regards the charge sheet having been issued under the signature of Registrar of the Board of Revenue, the learned trial Court after having considered the evidence on record held that the charge sheet though was signed by the Registrar but the same was issued and signed under the directions & orders of the Chairman of the Board of Revenue, therefore, the charge sheet cannot be said to have not been issued and signed by the competent authority. The learned trial Court also held that it is not open to the civil court to arrive at a decision contrary to the inquiry report of the Enquiry authority as an appellate authority, inasmuch as on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court concluded that the charge sheet given to the plaintiff was perfectly right and in accordance with the relevant Rules and further the plaintiff has failed to prove that inquiry proceedings are vitiated being non-est, illegal, based on malafides or without jurisdiction on the grounds stated in para 17 of the plaint. (12). Affirming the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court, the learned first appellate court further observed that the plaintiff has failed to prove as to how the charges stated in the memo of charge sheet and the plaint are ambiguous and not clear. (13). (12). Affirming the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court, the learned first appellate court further observed that the plaintiff has failed to prove as to how the charges stated in the memo of charge sheet and the plaint are ambiguous and not clear. (13). Prima-facie I am of the view that none of the orders i.e. either the disciplinary or the appellate authority suffers from vice of arbitrariness having not recorded reasons in support of their findings. It has been specifically recorded that gravemen of the charge against the appellant is that while performing his duties as Patwari, he has been guilty of financial irregularities and illegalities committed in performance of his duties during the course of allotment of lands. Therefore, giving of adequate or detailed reasons in rejecting the contentions of the plaintiff during the course of inquiry does not stand to reason nor the same is justifiable. It is not the case of the appellant that the authorities had acted in a malafide manner or that his immediate superior officer had nurtured any bias or grudge against him for which he has been falsely implicated in the case resulting in departmental inquiry which was conducted as per CCA Rules, followed by imposition of penalty. (14). As a result of above discussion, I am of the view that the findings of facts by the courts below are based on due appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be characterised as perverse or based on no evidence or surmises nor can they be said to have ignored material evidence. It is settled law that existence of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC and when there was no perversity, illegality or irregularity in the concurrent findings of the courts below which are based on proper appreciation of evidence and the material on record, therefore, such findings should not be upset in Second Appeal. No ground is made out which would call for any interference in the impugned judgments of the two courts below. There is hardly any substantial question of law being involved which may justify reversal of concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below i.e. the disciplinary and appellate authorities. (15). As a result of the above discussion, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. There is hardly any substantial question of law being involved which may justify reversal of concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below i.e. the disciplinary and appellate authorities. (15). As a result of the above discussion, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned judgment.& decree dated 28.1.80 passed by the trial Court which has been duly affirmed under judgment & decree dated 27.11.89 by the first appellate court are upheld. There will be no order as to costs.