Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below. He filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated October 16,1990 whereby Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana had dismissed him from service. The appellate order dated June 13,1990 and the revisional order dated March 16,1995 were also challenged by the plaintiff. It was claimed that the aforesaid orders were illegal,bad and without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff had remained absent from duty with effect from November 18,1988 till december 7,1988 and again from December 16,1988 till March 10,1989. An Inquiry Officer was appointed by the department. A regular departmental enquiry was held against the plaintiff. The plaintiff was found guilty of the charge against him. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report the punishing authority passed the order of punishment. 2. It was held by the learned courts below that a regular enquiry had been conducted by the department in accordance with law and by following the procedure and by adhering to the principles of natural justice, the punishment order had been passed by the competent authority. 3. The suit filed by the plaintiff was, thus, dismissed and his appeal before the learned first appellate court was also dismissed. 4. It is well settled that the civil court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the learned trial court and the order of punishment passed by the competent authority. 5. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal dismissed.