JUDGMENT 1. The appellant- plaintiff (hereafter 'the plaintiff') has preferred this second appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 28-1-2017 passed by the Additional District Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in first appeal No.375/2014 dismissing appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 24-11-2006 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur city, Jaipur in civil suit No.362/2004 whereby and whereunder suit has been dismissed and upheld the order dated 11-3-2002 passed under Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereafter 'Pension Rules') whereby 25% pension of the plaintiff was withheld permanently. 2. Facts as culled out from the record are that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the plaintiff vide order dated 21- 11-1999 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (hereafter 'the CCA Rules'). Charge sheet was issued that while the delinquent was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Colonization, Chhatargarh. He flouting orders of superior officers allotted agricultural land to agriculturists in lieu of their acquired agricultural land, while the Commissioner, Colonization, Bikaner vide letter dated 10-3-1987 ordered that land of 11 agriculturists in village Surasar Tehsil and District Bikaner was acquired by forest department with the help of local police for the purpose of plantation and charagah. In lieu of acquired land a list of such agriculturists was to be prepared and only the report was to be sent by the delinquent. But the delinquent instead of sending the report, on 2-4-1987 allotted land to agriculturists and further directed Tehsildar Colonization Poogal to send compliance report. It was alleged that according to order dated 29-8-1983 issued by the Government of Rajasthan Finance (Colonization) department the delinquent was not competent to allot the land. It was alleged that he intentionally allot land to agriculturists to give them undue benefits. The delinquent filed reply to the charge sheet and submitted that the order dated 29-8-1983 was never sent to him. Vide order dated 1-6-1991 Additional Commissioner (First) was appointed as Enquiry Officer, thereafter vide order dated 7-7-1994 Divisional Commissioner Bikaner was appointed Enqiry Officer. Vide enquiry report dated 12-8-1996 all charges were found proved against delinquent. The plaintiff retired on 31-12-1991 from the post of Dy. Inspector General Registration and Stamps, Hanumangarh. Vide order dated 1-6-1991 Additional Commissioner (First) was appointed as Enquiry Officer, thereafter vide order dated 7-7-1994 Divisional Commissioner Bikaner was appointed Enqiry Officer. Vide enquiry report dated 12-8-1996 all charges were found proved against delinquent. The plaintiff retired on 31-12-1991 from the post of Dy. Inspector General Registration and Stamps, Hanumangarh. He filed detailed representation against the enquiry report and after providing opportunity of hearing, vide impugned order dated 11-3- 2002 the punishment was imposed against the plaintiff for stoppage of 25% of his pension permanently. Hence he filed the present civil suit for permanent injunction. 2. Defendants filed written statement and stated that on the basis of available record charge sheet was issued. The delinquent being government servant caused financial loss to government, therefore, the department was entitled to initiate the enquiry proceedings. The delinquent has wrongly allotted land to agriculturists in lieu of their land acquired by forest department for the purpose of plantation and charagah. The delinquent was required only to send report of agriculturists, instead he allotted land to them. The delinquent admitted the letter dated 10-3-1987, but he acted contrary to the said letter. On proving charges against the delinquent, after providing adequate opportunities to the delinquent charges were found proved and the punishment was imposed. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. 3. On basis of pleadings of parties, only 2 issues were framed, one is whether the impugned order dated 11-3-2002 was null and void?, and the other relief. Plaintiff examined himself as Pw.1 and exhibited documents. In rebuttal one witness Dw.1 Jairam Meena was examined and documents were exhibited. The trial court considered the case on merits and found that there was no infirmity in enquiry proceedings and the plaintiff was provided all opportunities to plead his case and after considering evidence on record found the charges proved against the plaintiff. On receipt of enquiry report proper opportunity of hearing was provided and the impugned order of punishment was passed. In view of decision of issue No.1 against plaintiff, the suit was dismissed. 4. On filing first appeal, the appellate court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this second appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned judgments passed by courts below. 6. 4. On filing first appeal, the appellate court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, therefore dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, this second appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused impugned judgments passed by courts below. 6. Counsel for appellant has vehemently argued that impugned judgments are liable to be quashed and set aside. However, he failed to show any infirmity or illegality in the enquiry proceedings conducted by the department. 7. Counsel for appellant could not point out any infirmity, illegality or perversity in fact findings, which are based on appreciation/ re-appreciation of evidence on record. In case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [ (1999) 3 SCC 722 ] and catena of other judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai v. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [ (2001) 9 SCC 521 ], Thulasidhara & Anr. v. Narayanappa & Ors., [ (2019) 6 SCC 409 ], Bholaram v. Ameerchand, [ (1981) 2 SCC 414 ], Ishwar Das Jain v. Sohan Lal, [ (2000) 1 SCC 434 ] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sabal Singh & Ors., [ (2019) 10 SCC 595 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that at the stage of second appeal, fact findings recorded by two Courts below, based on appreciation of evidence, should be honoured and must not be interfered with unless and until there is some perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error which leads manifest injustice. Once findings of fact recorded by two Courts below are justified and based on due appreciation of evidence, re-appreciation of evidence at the stage of second appeal in order to draw a different conclusion is not warranted. The scope of second appeal is confined to examine substantial question of law, which are sine qua non to exercise powers under Section 100 of CPC. 8. In case of Umerkhan v. Bismillabi [ (2011)9 SCC 684 ] Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded that if a second appeal is admitted on substantial question of law, while hearing second appeal finally, can re-frame substantial question of law or can frame substantial question of law afresh or even can hold that no substantial question of law involved, but the High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction of Section 100 CPC without formulating substantial question of law. It is a case where no substantial question of law involved as there is no perversity or material irregularity/ infirmity in the judgments passed by courts below. Accordingly, the second appeal is not liable to succeed. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.