JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up on an application (I.A. No.2733/2013) for preponement of the date of hearing. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application (I.A. No.2733/2013) is allowed. 3. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, matter is heard today. 4. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.4.2013 passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in an appeal preferred by the petitioner while challenging the order dated 12.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Sri Ganganagar whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has been dismissed. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as Physical Instructor with the respondent School since 1998. Vide memo dated 2nd of April, 2012, a charge sheet was issued by the respondent-School in respect of certain charges against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') and has prayed for restraining the respondent-school to proceed further with the enquiry in respect of charges levelled against him vide memo dated 2nd of April, 2012, through, permanent injunction and also sought a declaration that the above referred charge sheet be declared void ab initio. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. has also been filed for restraining the respondent-school to proceed further in the enquiry. 6. Learned trial court after hearing the parties concerned dismissed the said application for temporary injunction vide order dated 12th of April, 2013 against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar which was also dismissed vide order dated 16th of April, 2013. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner while challenging the orders passed by the lower courts. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vineet Mathur, is that the charges levelled against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 2.4.2012 are absolutely baseless and without any basis. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner while challenging the orders passed by the lower courts. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vineet Mathur, is that the charges levelled against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 2.4.2012 are absolutely baseless and without any basis. It is further contended that the charges are in relation to the incidents took place way back in the year 2004, 2006, 2007 and 2008 but the respondent school issued appreciation letters to the petitioner upto the year 2012 and, therefore, in view of above, it is clear that the charge sheet against the petitioner was issued on account of malafides as he was active in espousing the causes of fellow teachers and students of the respondent-school with the administration of respondent-school. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders passed by the learned courts below as well as the material placed on record by the petitioner. 9. The learned trial court has taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and has observed that the petitioner has failed to prove that the administration of the respondent-school has no jurisdiction to serve the charge sheet to the petitioner as per the rules and procedure applicable in the case of a teacher working with the respondent-school. It is also observed by the learned trial court that since the respondent-school has jurisdiction to issue the charge sheet as per law and opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner to defend the charges, no prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioner. Learned trial court after not finding prima facie case in favour of the petitioner has also observed that the balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the petitioner and it cannot be said that any irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner since the enquiry against the petitioner is going on in accordance with law. The learned appellate court has found that the findings given by the learned trial court in respect of the prima facie case are not suffering from any illegality as the enquiry against the petitioner was initiated in accordance with law and the principle of natural justice has also been followed by the school while issuing the charge sheet. 10. The learned appellate court has found that the findings given by the learned trial court in respect of the prima facie case are not suffering from any illegality as the enquiry against the petitioner was initiated in accordance with law and the principle of natural justice has also been followed by the school while issuing the charge sheet. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince this Court that the action of respondent-school of issuance of charge sheet to the petitioner is without jurisdiction. Mr. Mathur has tried to demonstrate that the charges levelled against the petitioner are without any basis and are false, therefore, the learned courts below should have granted temporary injunction and should restrained the respondent-school from proceedings further with the enquiry against the petitioner. 11. This Court is of the opinion that the merits of the charges cannot be looked into at this stage as the same are subject matter of suit preferred by the petitioner and can only be decided by the trial court after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties, however, once prima facie it is proved that the respondent-school has jurisdiction to issue charge sheet, then the learned court below has not committed any illegality in not granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner. 12. In view above discussions and concurrent findings of both the courts below, this Court does not find any ground to issue any writ in favour of the petitioner.This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******