JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed by the appellants-defendants (for short, ’the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 12.1.2021 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short, ’the first appellate court’) in Civil Regular Appeal No. 4/2019, whereby the first appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 5.12.2018 passed by Addl. Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short, ’the trial court’) in Original Civil Suit No. 700/2009 decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and setting aside the punishment / termination order dated 9.6.2009 as also the appellate order dated 16.9.2009. 2. Facts of the case, as per the respondent-plaintiff (for short, ’the plaintiff’), are that in the year 1986, he was appointed as a Conductor with the defendants. On 15.12.2008, he was asked to discharge his duties on Jaipur Makrana route at 6.15 O’ clock. On the basis of false complaint, allegation was levelled against the plaintiff that without giving prior information and without getting the leave sanctioned, the plaintiff absented himself from duty uptil 29.12.2008, due to which the Corporation sustained revenue loss of Rs. 3894/-. It was also averred by the plaintiff that without serving copy of the charge sheet upon him and without giving him an opportunity to file his defence statement, on 13.2.2009 enquiry officer was appointed and subsequently vide order dated 9.6.2009, the plaintiff’s service was terminated. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.9.2009. The plaintiff filed a Civil Suit before the Trial Court. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence was led by both the parties and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration vide judgment and decree dated 8.10.2013. The plaintiff filed a Civil First Appeal before the First Appellate Court, which was partly allowed by First Appellate Court and accordingly the judgment and decree dated 8.10.2013 passed by the Trial Court was set-aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to decide issue no. 1 and 2 in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after detailed analysis of the material on record. 1 and 2 in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after detailed analysis of the material on record. Thereafter the Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 5.12.2018 decreed the plaintiff’s suit for declaration and set-aside the punishment order dated 9.6.2009 and appellate order dated 16.9.2009. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed Civil Regular Appeal before the First Appellate Court, which came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2021. Hence, this second appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the present dispute being an Industrial Dispute, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. However, the learned Courts below committed material illegality while decreeing the plaintiff’s suit and therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees are not legally sustainable and thus the second appeal deserves to be admitted. 4. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: i) Milkhi Ram Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board reported in (2021) 10 Supreme Court Cases 752 ii) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Versus Krishna Kant and others eported in (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 75 iii) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. and Others Versus Zakir Hussain reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 447 iv) Rajasthan SRTC and Another Versus Ugma Ram Choudhary reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 61 v) Rajasthan SRTC and others Versus Khadarmal reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 59 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has defended the impugned judgments and decrees and submits that without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to defend his case and without giving opportunity of proper hearing, the punishment order was passed and principle of natural justice was violated. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: i) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Versus Bal Mukund Bairwa reported in (2009) Supreme Court Cases 299 ii) Rajasthan State Road Corporation & Anr. Versus Narain Singh (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 396/1996; decided on 23rd September, 2015) iii) RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. Versus Mahavir Prasad Sharma (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 296/2000; decided on 15.1.2014) 6. Heard. Considered. 7. Versus Narain Singh (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 396/1996; decided on 23rd September, 2015) iii) RSRTC, Jaipur & Ors. Versus Mahavir Prasad Sharma (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 296/2000; decided on 15.1.2014) 6. Heard. Considered. 7. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Milkhi Ram (supra) relied upon by counsel for the defendants does not apply to the facts of the instant case because in the said case, controversy was as to whether the plaintiff had completed 240 days of uninterrupted service, which is not the situation here in this case. 8. Other judgments relied upon by counsel for the defendants also do not apply to the facts of the instant case. 9. From the material on record, it is evident that it was pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaint that without serving a copy of the charge sheet upon him and without giving an opportunity to defend his case, vide order dated 13.2.2009, the Enquiry Officer was appointed. When the plaintiff obtained copy of the charge sheet from the Enquiry Officer, copy of the documents in relation to the said charge sheet were not supplied to him. It was further averred by the plaintiff that during enquiry, no departmental nominee was appointed and the Enquiry Officer acted as a departmental nominee and conducted the enquiry only on the basis of oral evidence of the complainant, without summoning and taking on record the medical certificates and without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to produce evidence and documents to defend his case, violating the principles of natural justice. It was also averred that prior to issuing the punishment order, report of departmental enquiry was not provided to him. It was also averred that different Circulars were issued by the Corporation from 2005 to 2009, by which permission was granted to dispose of the cases while awarding proportionate punishment, but the same was not done in the case of plaintiff while terminating the plaintiff’s service. The plaintiff filed the departmental appeal, but without considering the grounds, his appeal was also dismissed. The order passed by the Appellate Authority being a non speaking order is liable to be set-aside. 10. The plaintiff filed the departmental appeal, but without considering the grounds, his appeal was also dismissed. The order passed by the Appellate Authority being a non speaking order is liable to be set-aside. 10. It is revealed from the aforesaid that the plaintiff challenged his termination order dated 9.6.2009 as also the order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority mainly on the ground of violation of equality and principle of natural justice. In this regard, Honl’ble Apex Court in the case of Bal Mukund Bairwa (supra) has held as under: "48. In a case where no enquiry has been conducted, there would be violation of the statutory Regulation as also the right of equality as contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such situation, a civil suit will be maintainable for the purpose of declaration that the termination of service was illegal and the consequences flowing therefrom. However, we may hasten to add if a suit is filed alleging violation of a right by a workman and a corresponding obligation on the part of the employer under the Industrial Disputes Act or the Certified Standing Orders, a civil suit may not lie. However, if no procedure has been followed as laid down by the statutory Regulation or is otherwise imperative even under the common law or the principles of natural justice which right having arisen under the existing law, sub-para (2) of paragraph 23 of the law laid down in Premier Automobiles Ltd. (supra) shall prevail." (Emphasis supplied by me) 11. In the case of Mahavir Prasad Sharma (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court while relying on the aforesaid judgment has held that where termination order was challenged on the ground of violation of equality and principles of natural justice, Civil Courts have jurisdiction to try the suit. This judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No. (s) 10788/2014 - RSRTC and Others Versus Mahavir Prasad Sharma; decided on 21.7.2014. 12. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the plaintiff. 13. Both the courts below having rightly considered the evidence led by the parties in the suit and there being concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 13. Both the courts below having rightly considered the evidence led by the parties in the suit and there being concurrent finding of facts recorded by both the courts below, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Even otherwise, when there has been a concurrent finding with regard to violation of principles of natural justice and the counsel for the defendants having failed to point out any question of law much less substantial question of law, this second appeal is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 14. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, the stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed accordingly.