JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful plaintiff before the lower appellate Court has filed the above Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.279 of 1983 on the file of Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli for declaration that the proceedings commenced by the defendant Management dated 25.6.1982 and ending with 25.10.1982 are vague, ab initio illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. According to the plaintiff, he was working as a Clerk in the defendant school and he was served with a charge memo dated 25.6.1982 containing six charges and called upon the plaintiff to give his explanation. The plaintiff submitted his explanation dated 3.7.1983. The plaintiff was called upon to attend the enquiry fixed on 8.8.1982. The plaintiff wanted to supply copies of documents as per his letter dated 3.8.1982. Through reply, the defendant informed the plaintiff that the Enquiry Officer would permit the plaintiff to peruse the said documents. Thereafter, the enquiry was adjourned on so many dates and in the letter dated 25.10.1982, a copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report was enclosed rendering the finding of guilt on every charge and the plaintiff was asked to show cause for his removal from service. At that stage, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit. 4. The defendant contested the suit contending inter alia stating that the plaintiff was removed from service on 30.11.1982 and the plaintiff, without challenging that order, cannot sustain the suit. The defendant- School have also come forward with a plea that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and that they have completed with all the principles of natural justice. They have also denied that the charges are value. 5. The trial Court, accepting the case of the plaintiff, decreed the suit. Hence, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No.384 of 1987 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli. The learned District Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal. 6. 5. The trial Court, accepting the case of the plaintiff, decreed the suit. Hence, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S. No.384 of 1987 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Tiruchirappalli. The learned District Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Hence, the Second Appeal. 6. The substantial questions of law that were framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal are as follows: (i) When the Supreme Court of India and the High Court, Madras, has laid down specifically that failure to afford adequate opportunity will render the enquiry null and void, can the lower appellate Court hold that even though the documents and witnesses wanted by the delinquent have not been furnished, the enquiry has to be reckoned as properly conducted enquiry because the plaintiff/ delinquent has participated in the enquiry, whether such conclusion is sustainable in law?(ii) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to consider the legality of the findings arrived at the enquiry and only the designated appellate authorities of the Educational Department have such a jurisdiction and the plaintiff/ delinquent ought to have approached such authorities instead of coming to the Court is valid in law? 7. The plaintiff has come forward with the above suit on the basis that the show cause notice containing charges are vague and non supply of documents, as asked for, vitiate the entire proceedings. It is relevant to mention that the plaintiff has not challenged the termination order dated 13.10.1982 which is marked as Ex.B-4, though the plaintiff filed the suit 1.11.1982. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that since the said order of dismissal was not served on the plaintiff, he could not have challenged the same. But unfortunately, inspite of the written statement, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to amend the plaint challenging the said order of dismissal. The said fact has been pointed out by the lower appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that all the charges are vague and so, the defendant cannot sustain the proceedings. The said fact has been pointed out by the lower appellate Court while reversing the judgment of the trial Court. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that all the charges are vague and so, the defendant cannot sustain the proceedings. The lower appellate Court, after perusing the charge memo, found that only charge Nos.2 and 3 are vague; and that the charge Nos.1, 4 and 6 are having details and so it cannot be said that they are vague. With respect to the charge regarding misappropriation, which has been set out in charge Nos.5 and 6, the lower appellate Court has found that the details can be arrived at only at the time of evidence. So the learned counsel is not correct in submitting that all the charges are vague. 10. Even with respect to the submission that the copies of documents were not given and without giving the same, the proceedings had been conducted, the lower appellate Court found that though the defendant School have not given any copies of documents, they have given opportunity to peruse the documents under Ex.A-1, for which the plaintiff has accepted and for the purpose of perusal of documents, the enquiry was adjourned to 2.10.1982, 3.10.1982, 8.10.1982 and 9.10.1982. Though the plaintiff submitted a petition stating that he was going to examine 29 witnesses, he examined only two witnesses. On 9.10.1982 when the enquiry was closed, the plaintiff informed the Enquiry Officer that he was not going to examine any other witness and mark any other document. So, on that basis, the lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiff’s case that he has not given fair opportunity cannot be sustained. 11. The fact remains that the plaintiff has not challenged the termination order and he has challenged only the proceedings prior to the termination order and the said order of termination has now become final. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a number of judgments on the basis that the said judgments are supporting his submission. The learned counsel relied on Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Company, (1963)2 S.C.J. 230: A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1124. The said judgment arises out of an order passed in a writ proceeding and dealt with the power of the High Court to interfere with the findings of the concerned authority. The learned counsel relied on Collector of Customs v. East India Commercial Company, (1963)2 S.C.J. 230: A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1124. The said judgment arises out of an order passed in a writ proceeding and dealt with the power of the High Court to interfere with the findings of the concerned authority. The said judgment is only a guideline for entertaining writ petitions challenging the orders passed in the departmental proceedings. But the plaintiff has not established that the interference by the civil Court is warranted on the basis of the reasonings set out in this decision. 13. The learned counsel also cited judgments reported in Rama Kant Misra v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1552, Krishnamurthi v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, 1984 Writ L.R. 21, Rajinder Kumar v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1805 and Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 995. These judgments also deal with the correctness of the order passed by the concerned authority pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings. But in the present case, as stated already, the plaintiff has not challenged the order of termination and so the said judgments cannot be relied on to the facts of the present case. 14. The learned counsel, further relied on the judgment reported in Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999)1 S.C.C. 472 . The said judgment deals with the issue whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In our case, both the Courts have entertained the suit and decided the case on merits. So, I need not deal with the said judgment for the purpose of deciding this case. 15. The next judgment relied on by the learned counsel in Surath Chandra v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 752. In the said cases, the Apex Court has held that an employee cannot be terminated on vague charges and without giving proper opportunity. In the present case, the lower appellate Court has clearly found that except charge Nos.2 and 3, other charges are having details and it cannot be said that they are vague charges. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not brought to my notice how the said findings are wrong. He has not even read out the charges to show that they are vague. The lower appellate Court found that opportunity has been given before passing the order of termination. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not brought to my notice how the said findings are wrong. He has not even read out the charges to show that they are vague. The lower appellate Court found that opportunity has been given before passing the order of termination. 16. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.