MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. ( 1 ) ASSAILING the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 18/19. 10. 2001 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubli, in R. A. No. 87/1995, the appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned advocates appearing on behalf of both sides and perused the material on record. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their ranks before the trial court. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts of the case are : The plaintiff-appellant herein has filed suit praying to declare the orders at Annexures-'d', 'e' and 'f' (produced along with the suit) as illegal and void, and consequentially for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants for recovering the amount on the strength of the order Annexure-'d' to the suit. He has also sought for certain other consequential reliefs. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that the enquiry conducted against him by the respondent-management is illegal and consequently, the orders passed by the Enquiry Officer imposing penalty, are liable to be quashed. The averments made in the complaint disclose that the plaintiff was working as Assistant Store Keeper since 1974. A departmental enquiry was conducted against him by the 1st defendant - Karnataka Electricity Board. The articles of charges were issued against the plaintiff alleging certain financial irregularities. The plaintiff denied all the allegations which were made against him by filing his reply. However, the Enquiry officer passed the order as per Annexure-'d' - filed along with the plaint, imposing certain penalty. Against the said order, plaintiff filed appeal to the Superintending Engineer, who in turn, dismissed the said appeal. Again Revision Petition was preferred by the plaintiff against the order of the Superintending Engineer to the Chief Engineer. The same also came to be dismissed. All the orders are questioned by the plaintiff by filing suit. According to him, the Enquiry officer has no jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry. Other grounds are also taken in the suit. Said suit is resisted by the Electricity Board by inter alia contending that the enquiry conducted against the plaintiff is just and proper and the Enquiry Officer has got jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry. In support of the case of the plaintiff, he himself got examined as PW-1 and got marked six documents at Exs. P-1 to P-6. Said suit is resisted by the Electricity Board by inter alia contending that the enquiry conducted against the plaintiff is just and proper and the Enquiry Officer has got jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry. In support of the case of the plaintiff, he himself got examined as PW-1 and got marked six documents at Exs. P-1 to P-6. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses were examined and four documents were got marked at Exs. D-1 to D-4. The trial Court after considering the material on record, decreed the suit by holding that the order - Annexure-'d' as null and void. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants- Karnataka Electricity Board- respondents herein filed R. A. No. 87/1995. The said appeal came to be allowed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18/19. 10. 2001. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the second appeal by the plaintiff. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the such suit; that the first Appellate Court is not justified in observing that the plaintiff has got alternative remedy, inasmuch as, the plaintiff has exhausted all the alternative remedies by filing appeal and revision under the rules of Electricity Board; that after exhausting those remedies, he has approached the Civil Court; and that the first Appellate Court is not justified in passing the judgment a day earlier to the date fixed for passing the judgment. ( 6 ) WHILE admitting this appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court; (1) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit filed by the appellant on the ground that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent? (2) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the appellant has got other remedies open and he can also agitate the matter in writ proceedings? On perusal of the judgment by the first Appellate Court it is found that the appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, has not considered the matter on merits. (2) Whether the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the appellant has got other remedies open and he can also agitate the matter in writ proceedings? On perusal of the judgment by the first Appellate Court it is found that the appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, has not considered the matter on merits. It has failed to consider the regularity of the enquiry proceedings, the question as to whether the principles of natural justice were violated during the course of enquiry proceedings and the question relating to the jurisdiction of the authority holding the disciplinary proceedings etc. , On the other hand, it has merely observed that the Civil Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal on the decision of the domestic enquiry and consequently, has held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try such suits. The first Appellate Court has also observed that the plaintiff should have first exhausted the alternative remedies available to him in the Rules of Electricity Board, and then should have approached the High Court. In other words, the Appellate Court has dismissed the suit by holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suits. It has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T. P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria No. 363, S. C. Belgaum and Ors. AIR1963 SC 1144 , [1964 ]1 SCR2 in support of its conclusion. The first Appellate Court is not justified in holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try such suits. May be it is true that, it is not the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to go into the question as to whether the evidence adduced during the course of domestic enquiry is adequate or inadequate to record a finding that the delinquent official is guilty of misconduct. However, the civil Court has got jurisdiction to find out the regularity of the proceedings of the enquiry and the question as to whether there is violation of principles of natural justice. It is also open for the civil Court to go into the question, if it is raised, as to the jurisdiction of the inquiring authority and the disciplinary authority either to hold disciplinary proceedings or to impose penalty. It is also open for the civil Court to go into the question, if it is raised, as to the jurisdiction of the inquiring authority and the disciplinary authority either to hold disciplinary proceedings or to impose penalty. However, it would not be within the purview of the Civil Court to appreciate the evidence adduced before the inquiring authority and to record a finding that the evidence relied upon by the inquiring officer is not correct. But, at the same time Civil Court can go into a question whether the penalty imposed is proportionate to the misconduct proved. As the penalty has to be just, reasonable and proportionate to the misconduct, any unreasonable penalty imposed shall have to be declared as wrong. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit on hand. The judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra T. P. Daver v. Lodge Victoria AIR1963 SC 1144 , [1964 ]1 SCR2 , relied upon by the Appellate Court while allowing the appeal may not be helpful to the case of the defendants, inasmuch as, in that case also it has been observed by the Apex Court that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is limited in such matters. That does not mean that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try such suits. ( 7 ) THE material on record would amply discloses that the plaintiff has approached the Appellate authority, as well as the revisional authority before approaching the Civil Court. In this view of the matter, the finding in that regard arrived at by the Appellate Court that the plaintiff has not exhausted alternative remedies, is also wrong. ( 8 ) THE order sheet maintained by the Appellate Court discloses that the appellant was heard on 27. 8. 2001 and the matter was adjourned to 6. 9. 2001 for hearing the respondent's advocate. After two adjournments, again the matter was posted on 5. 10. 2001 for arguments of the respondent. On that day also, no arguments were advanced on behalf of the respondent. Hence, the Appellate court posted the matter on 19. 10. 2001 for pronouncement of the judgment. However, the appeal was taken on board on 18. 10. 2001 at the request of the respondent's counsel (appellant herein ). He submitted the written arguments on that day. e. , on 18. 10. 2001. Hence, the Appellate court posted the matter on 19. 10. 2001 for pronouncement of the judgment. However, the appeal was taken on board on 18. 10. 2001 at the request of the respondent's counsel (appellant herein ). He submitted the written arguments on that day. e. , on 18. 10. 2001. Curiously, on the very day, the Appellate Court pronounced the judgment, allowing the appeal by stating that the judgment is ready by then. The order sheet dated 18. 10. 2001 maintained by the Appellate Court reads thus: 19. 10. 2001 18. 10. 2001 Appll - A. C. C. At the request of respt-A. C. N. Sri ACN Adv, case to Judgment is taken on board. He submitted written argts. But by this time the Judgment is kept ready to pronounce. Accordingly it is pronounced. Appeal is allowed, (vide Jdt ). Sd/ 18/10. The aforesaid method adopted by the first Appellate Court cannot be justified. Merely because the Appellate Court had prepared its judgment, it could not have pronounced the judgment one day prior to the date fixed for the said purpose. Moreover, though the order is pronounced on 18th October, it is mentioned in the order sheet as 19-10-2001/18-10-2001. Such a course, should not have been adopted by the appellate court. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the judgment of the first Appellate Court cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order is made: the judgment and decree passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Hubli, dated 18/19. 10. 2001 in R. A. No. 87/1995, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the first Appellate Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Appellate Court shall hear both the parties and thereafter pass the judgment in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, but not later than the outer limit of six months from today. Both parties shall co-operate for early disposal of the matter. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.