Judgment Rajesh H. Shukla, J.—The present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-State posing the following substantial questions of law: (1). Whether the Courts below are justified in quashing the order passed after holding inquiry? (2). Whether the Courts below have committed an error by interfering with the order of minor punishment after holding departmental inquiry? (3). Whether the Courts below have committed an error by adjudicating the case though the appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the department was pending? (4). Whether the lower Appellate Court has erred in relying upon the documents produced at the appellate stage which are not even proved by the plaintiff-respondent herein? (5). Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified in allowing a candidate to continue on the post de hors the selection criteria? 2. The facts of the case, briefly summarised, are that the respondent-original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 68/90 before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Gondal for injunction. The defendant was serving as Wireless Police Sub-Inspector in S.R.P. Gr. No. VIII at Gondal. He was sought to be posted as detachment in-charge, Tamilnadu at Ahmadabad vide oder dated 13.1.1989 which he is said to have failed to comply and report for duty. This led to initiation of departmental inquiry and the order was passed in the departmental inquiry imposing punishment of placing him in the minimum of the scale, which has been challenged by the plaintiff in the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No. 68/90 on various grounds. 3. After appreciation of evidence and hearing both the sides the trial court decreed the suit restraining the defendant, the appellant herein, from giving effect to the said order placing the original plaintiff in minimum of the scale. Regular Appeal No. 83/97 came to be filed before the District Court, Gondal challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Gondal. However, it was dismissed and the order passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 68/90 was confirmed vide the judgment and order of the lower appellate court dated 2.12.2009. Therefore, the present Second Appeal has been preferred posing the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 4. However, it was dismissed and the order passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 68/90 was confirmed vide the judgment and order of the lower appellate court dated 2.12.2009. Therefore, the present Second Appeal has been preferred posing the aforesaid substantial questions of law. 4. Though the learned AGP has made a feeble attempt to point out the fact that as he has failed to resume duty and remained absent without any intimation and has also not submitted the wireless set, the departmental action was initiated and the order was passed. She submitted that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence and in any case the Civil Court should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Koyani for the respondent-original plaintiff submitted that as observed by both the courts below, the respondent original plaintiff had intimated and sent a report through his neighbour that as his mother was ill and hospitalised, he could not report for duty. Learned Advocate Mr. Koyani submitted that it cannot be said that he had remained absent without any report or intimation. He therefore submitted that both the courts below have appreciated this aspect which was not considered in the departmental inquiry and therefore the suit was decreed and the appeal field by the present appellant was dismissed. He, therefore, submitted that the present Second Appeal may not be entertained considering the limited scope of exercise of discretion in the Second Appeal in view of the two concurrent findings of fact and evidence by the courts below. 6. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present Second Appeal can be entertained or not. 7. As discussed above, both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact on appreciation of evidence with regard to the fact that the plaintiff had submitted a report for not remaining present or reporting for duty on the ground that the mother was ill. A departmental inquiry was conducted for these very charges and punishment was inflicted placing him in the minimum of the sale which was challenged. 8. The findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below, therefore, do not call for any interference particularly when he is said to have sent the report and therefore it cannot be said that he remained absent without any information or intimation. 8. The findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below, therefore, do not call for any interference particularly when he is said to have sent the report and therefore it cannot be said that he remained absent without any information or intimation. Normally, the Civil Court should not interfere with the imposition of punishment. However, as discussed by both the courts below, considering the evidence the orders have been passed which cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore, considering the limited scope of exercise of discretion under sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure in the Second Appeal, the present Second Appeal does not call for any interference with the concurrent findings of fact by both the courts below as there is no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, which can be said to have been involved as can be seen from the questions posed. 9. It is well accepted hat the scope of exercise of discretion under sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure is very limited and only when there is a substantial question of law is involved such discretion can be exercised. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment in the case of Gurudev Kaur & Ors. vs. Kaki & Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 546 , has observed that unless any substantial question of law is involved, the Court need not entertain the second appeal. Further. It has been observed that it could be a ground for a third appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down general principles with regard to the scope of exercise of discretion in second appeal after the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure in 1976. The same view has been subsequently reiterated in a subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 8 SCC 92 in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. vs. S.N. Goyal. 10. Therefore, the present Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Notice is discharged. 11. In view of dismissal of the Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and it disposed of accordingly. P P P P P