JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this second appeal, the defendant-appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 18th August, 2012 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 28/2007 dismissing the appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree dated 13th August, 2007 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 184/2005 whereby the civil suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed against the defendant appellants holding therein that the defendant-appellants had no right to issue charge sheet in the facts and circumstances of the present case and to impose punishment on the plaintiff respondent and the punishment order dated 29th December, 1995 imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has wrongly been passed and further the plaintiff respondent is entitled for the benefit of two annual grade increments again as well as promotion. 3. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff respondent was served with a charge sheet dated 3rd May, 1991 levelling allegations that while working as Assistant Colonisation Commissioner, Chhatargarh (Bikaner) he, in an unauthorised and illegal manner, has restored land allotment order in favour of Ganesha Ram which has resulted in giving undue advantage to Ganesha Ram. After departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (CC& A) Rules, 1958 (in short 'the Rules of 1958'), the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order dated 29th December, 1995 imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect against which a Review Petition was filed which was also dismissed on 27th May, 2000. After departmental inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (CC& A) Rules, 1958 (in short 'the Rules of 1958'), the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order dated 29th December, 1995 imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect against which a Review Petition was filed which was also dismissed on 27th May, 2000. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that the punishment order dated 29th December, 1995 whereby he was punished with stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect pursuant to the charge sheet dated 3rd May, 1991 under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 be declared as illegal and invalid with the further averments that while working as Assistant Commissioner Colonisation, Chattargarh (Bikaner) Camp, he passed an order on the application of agriculturist Ganesha Ram for restoration of allotment of his land as per the general procedure after calling a report from the Patwari Halka Kotiband and Tehsil Revenue Accountant who have recommended for restoration and on the basis of their recommendation and considering the fact that Ganesha Ram was having permanent allotment and was in possession of the land, therefore, imposing penalty of Rs. 200/-, the restoration order dated 18th September,1989 of allotment of land was passed. It was also pleaded that the said action of the plaintiff was bona fide action and there was neither any ill-will on the part of the plaintiff nor any undue advantage was taken by him. The plaintiff then pleaded that no loss was caused to the State Government, therefore, the punishment order dated 29th December, 1995 be declared illegal and contrary to the Rules. 4. The defendant appellants filed their written statement to the plaint to the effect that the plaintiff ought to have examined the entire matter of Ganesha Ram whether the report given by the subordinate officer was correct or not but the plaintiff without doing so restored the land in favour of Ganesha Ram who was not a landless person. Thus, he has misused his power. It was further stated in the written statement that the disciplinary inquiry has been held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and he was rightly punished, against which the Review Petition was filed but the same was also dismissed by the Reviewing Authority. Thus, he has misused his power. It was further stated in the written statement that the disciplinary inquiry has been held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and he was rightly punished, against which the Review Petition was filed but the same was also dismissed by the Reviewing Authority. Legal objection regarding maintainability of the civil suit against the officers of the State Government in absence of a notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code was also raised. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following eight issues were framed:- 1- vk;k oknh us x.ks'kjke ds gd esa [kkfjt'kqnk jdck cgky djus esa dksbZ ykijokgh ugha dh\ 2- vk;k oknh }kjk tkap vf/kdkjh ds le{k izLrqr izfrmRrj ij tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk fopkj.k fd;s fcuk xyr fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k gS\ 3- vk;k n.Mkns'k fnukad 29-11-1995 fu;e fo:) ,oa rF;ksa ds foijhr gS\ 4- vk;k oknh ds le{k lEcfU/kr Vh0vkj0,0 eksguukFk fl) }kjk xyr rF; ,oa fjiksVZ izLrqr dh xbZ] ftl ij vfo'okl fd;s tkus dk oknh ds ikl dksbZ dkj.k ugha Fkk] mlds vk/kkj ij gh oknh }kjk cgkyh vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k] tks ln~HkkoukiwoZd fd;k x;k d`R; gS] ftlds fy;s oknh dks nf.Mr ugha fd;k tk ldrk\ 5- vk;k n.Mkns'k bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj esa ikfjr fd;k x;k ugha gksus o U;k;'kqYd ds ewY;kadu de fd;s tkus ls okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gksus ds dkj.k bl U;k;ky; dks ckn lquus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS\ 6- vk;k oknh dk okn fe;kn ckgj gS\ 7- vk;k fo'ks"k gtkZ oknh ls izfroknhx.k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 8- vuqrks"k\ 6. The plaintiff, in support of the averments of the plaint has produced himself in evidence as PW.1 and further produced seven documents whereas the defendants examined DW.1 Shivkant Sharma and 9 documents were exhibited in documentary evidence. 7. Out of the aforesaid issues, issue Nos. 1 to 4 are the main issues and these issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiff respondent. In regard to issue Nos. 5 to 7, the defendant appellants have not produced any evidence, therefore, the trial court has not considered it proper to decide the same and ultimately on the basis of the findings recorded on issue Nos. 1 to 4 are the main issues and these issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiff respondent. In regard to issue Nos. 5 to 7, the defendant appellants have not produced any evidence, therefore, the trial court has not considered it proper to decide the same and ultimately on the basis of the findings recorded on issue Nos. 1 to 4, the trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent vide judgment and decree dated 13th August, 2007.that the defendant-appellants had no right to issue charge sheet in the facts and circumstances of the present case and to impose punishment on the plaintiff respondent and the punishment order dated 29th December, 1995 imposing penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect has wrongly been passed and further the plaintiff respondent is entitled for the benefit of two annual grade increments again as well as promotion. 8. Against this judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant-appellants filed Regular First Appeal No. 28/2007 before the first appellate court which has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18th August, 2012. 9. The first appellate court considered the entire evidence and decided issue Nos. 1 to 4 simultaneously and while deciding the said issues, the court was of the view that the main issue which is required to be considered is whether the plaintiff has been rightly held guilty or holding him guilty is against the facts of the case as well as the law. The appellate court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record has also considered the judgment of the trial court wherein the plaintiff has deposed that as per the usual procedure, on depositing the installments of rent, interest on the same and penalty, allotment of the land is required to be restored by the Assistant Commissioner and there is no denial of the fact that the plaintiff was having authority to restore the allotment as per the aforesaid procedure, rather in the evidence of defendants, it has been admitted by the witness of the defendants that as per the procedure, the higher officer used to rely on the report of the sub-ordinate officer and to restore the allotment after recovery of remaining installments, interest and imposing penalty. The court has further considered the fact that as per the evidence there was no ill-will of the plaintiff in restoring allotment. The appellate court has also considered the fact that no undue advantage has been taken by the plaintiff respondent by restoring allotment of Ganesha Ram which has resulted in misusing the official position and the said action of the plaintiff respondent is bonafide. Further no loss has been caused to the State Government as when the said mistake came to the knowledge of the respondent, the said order was cancelled, therefore, no loss has been caused to the State Government and the charge sheet is not justified. The appellate court then considered the fact that the witness of the defendant was not posted at Bikaner when the aforesaid proceedings have taken place and was not knowing any thing about issuance of charge-sheet proving the plaintiff guilty rather he was also not a witness in the disciplinary inquiry and gave evidence on the basis of the record which has also not been proved by producing either the author of the charge sheet or the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority or any other person connected with the inquiry. Thus, the first appellate court was of the view that the contents of the aforesaid documents have not been proved and the trial court has committed no error in deciding the aforesaid issues in favour of the plaintiff and the said issues have been rightly decided against the defendants and the suit has rightly been decreed in favour of the plaintiff, against which, the present second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellants. 10. Submission of counsel for the defendant appellants is that the both the courts below have committed error of law in not considering the fact that the plaintiff respondent was negligent in restoring allotment in favour of Ganesha Ram. Before doing so, he ought to have made inquiry from the record with regard to the fact of possession and further actual possession after cancellation of the earlier allotment, therefore, both the courts below have committed error of law in setting aside the punishment order. 11. Before doing so, he ought to have made inquiry from the record with regard to the fact of possession and further actual possession after cancellation of the earlier allotment, therefore, both the courts below have committed error of law in setting aside the punishment order. 11. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff respondent has supported the judgments of both the courts below and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there was no justification to issue charge sheet to the plaintiff respondent and the findings of both the courts below are findings of facts based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record, therefore, no interference called for by this Court in this second appeal. No substantial question of law involves in this second appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 12. I have gone through the record of the second appeal and further considered the aforesaid submissions of counsel for the parties. 13. On consideration of the same, this Court is of the view that there was no reason for the plaintiff respondent to disbelieve the report of the Halka Patwari and the Tehsil Revenue Accountant and further the plaintiff respondent posted as Assistant Commissioner was having authority under law to restore allotment and if any mistake was committed by his subordinate, he cannot directly be held responsible for adopting the official procedure proved before the court below. The present case is not of negligence also on the part of the plaintiff respondent, therefore, the charge sheet is not justified. The charge-sheet as well as the record of the inquiry have not been proved by the defendant appellants by examining the person concerned. In this view of the matter, both the courts below have committed no illegality of any kind which can be taken as substantial question of law. 14. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The second appeal has no force and the same is, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******