JUDGMENT : This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Aska in Title Appeal No. 13 of 1994 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Aska in Title Suit No. 53 of 1992 filed by the appellant as the plaintiff. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the court below. 3. The suit is for declaration that a order passed by the Enquiry Officer on 19.08.1992 for deduction of a sum of Rs. 250/- per month from the salary of the plaintiff as void and inoperative as also for permanent and mandatory injunction not to deduct the same anymore and repay the amount so recovered. Plaintiff was working as Field Assistant under the Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited arraigned in the suit as defendant no. 1. It is stated that during his tenure of service as such some allegations were leveled regarding shortage of bamboo bundles worth of Rs. 1,36,759/- from Gajalabadi depot under his charge. So, in January, 1991, the defendant no. 2, issued the letter mentioning those charges as regards causing loss to the defendant no. 1 stating that defendant no. 1 has suffered a loss on account of the negligence of the duty of the plaintiff. Explanation was called for. The plaintiff partially admitted the shortage but attributed that it had so happened on account of some circumstances beyond his care and control and accordingly prayed to exonerate him from any such liabilities. A departmental proceeding was initiated. It is now stated that said proceeding was conducted in gross violation of principle of natural justice and therefore the final order passed by the defendant no. 2, Ext. 3 is nonest in the eye of law. Hence, this suit. 4. The defendants first raised the objection with regard to the entertainability of the suit by the civil court and jurisdiction as such to try the suit. It has been asserted that the departmental proceeding had been conducted in conformity with the principle of natural justice. 2, Ext. 3 is nonest in the eye of law. Hence, this suit. 4. The defendants first raised the objection with regard to the entertainability of the suit by the civil court and jurisdiction as such to try the suit. It has been asserted that the departmental proceeding had been conducted in conformity with the principle of natural justice. The plaintiff neither preferred an appeal nor revision as provided under the relevant service rules and without seeking the remedy as provided in the service rules, he has approached the civil court claiming reliefs as above which is not permissible. The defendants have pleaded the loss has been caused for the negligence of the plaintiff in discharge of his duty and he is liable for the same on that account. It is also stated that sufficient opportunities have been given to the plaintiff by issuing notice from time to time and then after recording the statements of the witnesses in his presence affording due opportunity to him to cross-examine, the enquiry has been concluded and finally order has been passed. 5. The trial court faced with above rival pleadings framed eight issues. The issue relating to the maintainability of the suit and also as regards the legal force of the order passed in the departmental proceeding, have been answered in favour of the plaintiff and finally the suit having been decreed, the reliefs as prayed for had been granted. The lower appellate court being moved by the unsuccessful defendants as is seen has taken up a question of jurisdiction of the civil court. After finding that, the court is having the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit, it has been held that the plaintiff having already chosen the departmental forum without immediately approaching the civil court and when there he failed to get a favourable order, has approached the civil court, the suit is not maintainable. 6. The appeal has been admitted on the substantial questions of law as stated under ground (G) of the memorandum of appeal which are reproduced here in below:- (I) Whether civil court has the jurisdiction to try the suit to declare the order of the punishing authority as void illegal on the ground of non-compliance of the produce or the statute and for violation of principles of natural justice? (II) Whether Rule 122(2) of the statute requires a proceeding to be conducted before imposition of penalty under Rule -121 of the Statute? (III) Whether non-compliance with the provisions of the Rules and contravention of principles of natural justice would render the proceeding void? 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the lower appellate court that the suit is not maintainable is unsustainable in the eye of law. Even if an alternative remedy is available under the service rule, according to her, the same is not a bar for entertainment of the suit by the civil court. Reliance in this connection has been placed by the decision of this Court in Abhay Kumar Nayak Vrs. Union of India; 1985(II) OLR 239. It is also submitted that general jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted by the provision of special statute unless it is expressly so excluded and it is always open to examine whether the statutory functionaries have acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or not. She has placed reliance again upon the decision of this Court in case of Shri Kailash Chandra Mohanty & Others Vrs. State of Orissa; 2007(II) CLR 879. Thus she contends that the well discussed and well reasoned findings recorded by the trial court ought not to have been so lightly set at naught by the lower appellate court and that conclusion of the lower appellate court is attacked as without the legal backing. Learned counsel for the respondents refuting the above contends that the lower appellate court has rightly dismissed the suit as not maintainable as the plaintiff had never challenged the order of departmental proceeding in appeal or revision as provided in the relevant service rules and therefore, those have attained finality. He of course fairly concedes that the jurisdiction of the civil court yet remains to examine as to if such order has been the outcome of the proceeding which has began and concluded in flagrant violation of the principle of natural justice without being in conformity with the provisions as contained in the service rules. It is his contention that when no evidence remains that there has been violation of principle of natural justice which can be seen from Ext. A, the entire record of the departmental proceeding, the suit has to fail. 9. It is his contention that when no evidence remains that there has been violation of principle of natural justice which can be seen from Ext. A, the entire record of the departmental proceeding, the suit has to fail. 9. The position of law as culled out from those decisions (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are that: (i) exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not be readily inferred. Such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied; (ii) even if jurisdiction is so excluded, Civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine into the cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. Civil Court would interfere if it finds the order of the Special Tribunal to be unfair, capricious or arbitrary. 10. Legal position is well settled that even if jurisdiction is excluded, it is always open to the Civil Courts which are Courts of general jurisdiction to consider and decide whether the statutory Tribunal has acted within the ambit of the powers conferred upon it by the statute to which it owes its existence or the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or it has transgressed the limits placed on its powers by the legislature. The Civil Court would interfere if it finds that the order of the statutory Tribunal is unfair, capricious or arbitrary.” Law is, therefore, fairly settled that even when the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded by a special statute, it is still open to the Civil Court to examine whether statutory Tribunal acted in conformity with the fundamental principle of judicial procedure and being in compliance with the provisions of the Act as mandatory. 11. Examining the case in hand, keeping the above settled principles in mind, it is seen from Ext. A, the record of the departmental proceeding that the plaintiff being served with the letter has fully participated in the proceeding; the statement of witnesses have been recorded and so also that of the plaintiff. The witnesses have been cross-examined by the plaintiff. He was participating in the departmental proceeding by taking necessary permission. A, the record of the departmental proceeding that the plaintiff being served with the letter has fully participated in the proceeding; the statement of witnesses have been recorded and so also that of the plaintiff. The witnesses have been cross-examined by the plaintiff. He was participating in the departmental proceeding by taking necessary permission. It has been written by the plaintiff in clear terms that the statement of the witness had been so recorded in his presence besides the fact that cross-examination made and also that he has nothing more to add. It has also been prayed by him that the proceeding be decided by ascertaining the truth and correctness of his own statement. The Enquiring Officer then has gone through all those statements and has finally arrived at the following conclusions :- (1) due to careless execution of the field work by the delinquent, the organization sustained heavy loss; and (2) in proper working of the delinquent caused heavy loss to the Corporation finally and thereby proves his negligence in duty. In view of above he ultimately had recommended to debar the plaintiff from promotion in coming five years being declared unsuitable for the same during the period. Admittedly, the order of the Enquiring Officer has not been challenged by carrying any appeal or revision as provided under the relevant service rules. And thus that has attained finality and so also the consequential order of punishment that has been ultimately passed by the higher authority for realization of sum of Rs. 24,302/- as against the charged amount of Rs. 1,36,759/-. The order has been communicated to the plaintiff that in 97 installments @ Rs.250/- per month the sum would be deducted from his salary and there would be stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The trial court as is seen has gone to examine the matter as to if the departmental proceeding as commenced and has been finalized as if tried like a regular suit or not and accordingly it has pointed out the details of the deficiencies. The line of examination made by the trial court, in my considered view with the limited jurisdiction of the civil court is not permissible. On carefully going through the evidence on record as also the record of the departmental proceeding, Ext. The line of examination made by the trial court, in my considered view with the limited jurisdiction of the civil court is not permissible. On carefully going through the evidence on record as also the record of the departmental proceeding, Ext. A, it is found that the same has been done in conformity with the principle of natural justice and not at the back of the plaintiff so as to hit him below the belt. The order is thus not found to be unfair capricious and arbitrary and rather it is seen to have been passed upon due application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case giving rise to the proceeding simultaneously viewing the duty that the plaintiff was ordained to perform and accordingly even holding him liable only to a limited extent at the ultimatum. Thus, although I don’t agree with the view taken by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff having chosen the departmental machinery by participating in the said proceeding, the suit at his instance is not entertainable and thus the court has no jurisdiction to try the same and decide yet in view of the settled position of law as aforesaid and upon due examination of the facts and circumstances of the case and the available materials, this Court finds no reason and legal justification to say that the final order passed by the departmental proceeding as well as the consequential punishment imposed are liable to be interfered with since in any considered view those clearly pass through the limited tests which the civil court has to put within its limited scope. The aforesaid discussions thus provide the answers to the substantial question of law which run against the appellant. 12. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal stands dismissed and in the facts and circumstances without cost throughout.