Muni Lal Mandal vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 2500 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022
                            With
                     I.A. No. 4368 0f 2022
 (Arising out of order dated 23.02.2022 passed in W.P. (S) No. 1817 of 2016)
               ------
     Muni Lal Mandal
     aged about 44 years
     son of Phulki Mandal
     resident of Village Budhuchak,
     P.O. Budhuchak, P.S. Kahalgaon,
     District Bhagalpur                  ...     ...   Petitioner / Appellant
                                         Versus
 01. Union of India
     through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
     North Block, New Delhi, P.O. and P.S. North Block,
     New Delhi, PIN 110001
 02. The Director General, C.I.S.F.,
     Block No. 13, C.G.O., Complex, Lodhi Road,
     P.O. and P.S. Lodhi Road, NewDelhi-110003
 03. The Inspector General, C.I.S.F.
     Eastern Sector Head Quarter,
     P.O. Boring Road, P.S. Patliputra, Patna 15, Bihar
 04. The D.I.G. (C.I.S.F.) Eastern Sector Head Quarter,
     P.O. Boring Road, P.S. Patliputra, Patna 15, Bihar
 05. The Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit P.T.P.S. Patratu,
     P.O. and P.S. Patratu,
     District Ramgarh, Jharkhand... ...            Respondents / Respondents
                            -----

 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
                     --------
 For the Appellant             : Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate
 For the Respondents           : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                     --------

 Order No. 04 / Dated: 01st August, 2023
 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant and the learned

counsel for the Respondents / Respondents.

I.A. No. 4368 0f 2022

2. Before entering into the merit of the issue, it requires to deal with the

issue of limitation, since, this appeal has been filed after the period of

limitation.

L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

3. This interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the instant

Appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Having regard to the averments made in the application and

submission made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellant

was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of

limitation and having no objection on the part of the Respondent State, the

delay of 20 days in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned.

6. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 4368

of 2022 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

7. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner / Appellant and the learned

counsel for the Respondents / Respondents. The instant appeal is being

heard on merit.

8. The appeal is under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent directed against

the order dated 23.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in

W.P.(S) No. 1817 of 2016 whereby and whereunder while dismissing the writ

petition the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of

punishment of dismissal from service.

9. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition

which require to be enumerated herein, read under as:

L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

10. The Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing

the order of dismissal, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as

well as the revisional authority. The material fact of the writ was that the

petitioner joined the services of Central Industrial Security Force as a

Constable on 19.05.2001 and was lastly posted as such in CISF Unit, PTPS,

Patratu at Ramgarh. The petitioner was served Charge of Memo vide Letter

No. 1442, dated 08.06.2013, by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security

Force, PTPS, Patratu. The Enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and on the

basis of a letter by the Circle Officer, Kahalgaon, which declares that

petitioner belongs to Gongota Caste and despite several explanations

submitted by him, came to the findings that petitioner, had obtained

employment on the basis of false document. The Disciplinary authority,

relying upon the finding of the enquiry officer passed final order of dismissal

from service. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal requesting

therein for proper verification from the Scheduled Tribes Commission

constituted under Articles 338 and 339 of the Constitution of India but the

Appellate Authority, upheld the punishment vide order dated 30.12.2013.

Thereafter petitioner preferred revision which was also not considered and

rejected vide order dated 08.05.2014. Being aggrieved, petitioner knocked

door of this Court.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argued that

the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is fit to

be quashed and set aside on the ground that petitioner admittedly belongs to

the Scheduled Tribes Category and it was the respondents - State who had L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

issued Caste Certificate mentioning the caste to which petitioner does not

belong. Learned counsel further argued that it is specific case of the petitioner

that while issuing Caste Certificate, the concerned authorities mentioned

wrong Caste in the Caste Certificate issued in his favour. Learned counsel

argued that from 22.03.2001 to 27.11.2013, the Circle Officer and the SDO,

Kahalgaon issued certification in respect of petitioner as belonging to "Gond"

and "Kharwar" caste and both the Caste belong to Scheduled Tribe category

as declared by the Scheduled Tribes Record of Bihar Government vide

Certificate No. 9810, dated 27.11.2013. Learned counsel argued that

petitioner never produced any false certificate for obtaining job rather he had

produced the documents supplied by the competent authority on the basis of

Khatiyan which declares petitioner to be Kharwar, a Scheduled Tribes.

Petitioner never tried to mislead the department. Learned counsel further

argues that even if caste was wrongly mentioned but the fact remains that he

belongs to the Scheduled Tribes category. There was no occasion to slap him

with harsh punishment.

12. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove that the

writ petitioner joined the services of Central Industrial Security Force in

pursuance to an advertisement issued by the competent authority as Constable

on 19.05.2001 and while he was posted in CISF Unit, PTPS, Patratu at

Ramgarh, he was served with Memorandum of Charge vide Letter No. 1442,

dated 08.06.2013, by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force,

PTPS, Patratu, on allegation of Commission of fraud by getting the

appointment on the basis of the false caste certificate.

L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

13. The Enquiry Officer was appointed with a direction upon the writ

petitioner to participate in the enquiry. The writ petitioner had participated in

the enquiry and defended his case. The enquiry officer has found the charge

proved and has forwarded the finding so recorded by the enquiry officer to the

disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority on acceptance of the findings

so recorded by the enquiry officer has passed the order of punishment of

dismissal from service, vide order dated 06.11.2013 as appended Annexure-4

to Paper Book.

14. The writ petitioner thereafter has preferred appeal which was also

dismissed by affirming the decision taken by the disciplinary authority vide

order dated 30.12.2013 as appended as Annexure-5 to the Paper

Book as also the revisional authority had refused to interfere with the order of

punishment imposed by the original authority which was affirmed by the

appellate authority vide order dated 08.05.2014.

15. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the orders passed by the

Administrative Authorities has challenged the said orders by filing the writ

petition being W.P.(S) No. 1817 of 2016. The learned Single Judge after

taking into consideration the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India and considering the merit of the issue that the writ

petitioner has got the appointment on the basis of the caste certificate to which

he does not belong and accordingly, dismissed, which is the subject matter of

the instant appeal.

16. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ

petitioner has submitted by assailing the order that the learned Single Judge L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

has not considered the verified fact that the discretion of caste of the writ

petitioner which was produced before the appointing authority at the time of

getting appointment was based upon the reference so made in the Cadastral

survey. It has been contended that the caste certificate was issued by taking

into consideration the aforesaid Cadastral survey and the aforesaid facts has

specifically been agitated before the Enquiry Officer but the same has not

been considered and as such the learned Single Judge since has not considered

the aforesaid fact, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes

of law.

17. While Mr Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge

by making submission that the writ petitioner has been provided with all

adequate and sufficient opportunities before the Enquiry Officer, rather, he

has also been provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and

hence there is no complaint what so ever on behalf of the writ petitioner, of

any violation of the principle of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer on

consideration of the documents as also the defence of the writ petitioner has

found the charge proved, based upon which the disciplinary authority on its

acceptance has passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service vide

the final order dated 06.11.2013 as appended as Annexure-4 which has been

affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.12.2013 as appended

as Annexure-5 of the Paper Book

18. It has been contended that the learned Single Judge after taking into

consideration the finding so recorded by the Enquiry Officer duly been L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

accepted by the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion by taking

into consideration the position of law that the scope of judicial review under

Article 226 is very limited so far as the decision of the administrative

authority in the matter of disciplinary proceeding is concerned, therefore, the

order impugned may not be interfered with.

19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the

documents available on record as also the findings recorded by the learned

Single Judge in the impugned order.

20. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the writ petitioner

was appointed as Constable way back on 19.05.2001 under the Scheduled

Tribe category, since, the writ petitioner has claimed to be the member of a

Gond Caste, which falls under the Schedule Tribe category. The writ

petitioner based upon the aforesaid caste certificate issued by the Circle

Officer dated 22.03.2001 had joined the duty and started rendering his

services but after a lapse of about 12 years, based upon a complaint, about the

misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner in getting the appointment

under the scheduled Tribe category showing himself to be a member of Gond

caste, a enquiry was contemplated and in pursuance thereto the memorandum

of charge was issued on 08.06.2013 alleging therein that the appointment was

got on the basis of the forged caste certificate and in contemplation of the

departmental proceeding he was also put under suspension and as such the

charge has been levelled of commission of gross misconduct and indiscipline.

The second charge has been levelled against the writ petitioner that even

though he belongs to the Gongota caste but only, for the purpose of getting L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

appointment he has presented his caste to be of Gond caste and on his

representation he was able to get the caste certificate under the Gond caste

which comes under scheduled Tribe category. The enquiry proceeded and it

appears from the enquiry report appended as Annexure-3 which is at page-24

that the documents have been appreciated by the enquiry officer, witnesses

have been examined as also the core of the issue i.e. the caste certificate in

order to assess as to whether the writ petitioner belongs to scheduled tribe

category or scheduled caste, the report has also been sought for, in pursuance

thereto, the revenue Karamcharai has submitted its report, reporting therein

that the caste certificate which was issued in favour of the writ petitioner basis

upon which the writ petitioner was appointed as Constable as per the

reference of the issuance of the caste certificate as under Sl. No. 307 dated

22.03.2001 has already been cancelled by the order passed in this regard by

the Circle Officer, Kahalgaon as contained in letter No. 696 dated

18.08.2012. The Enquiry Officer based upon the deposition of the sub-

divisional officer, Kahalgaon, who has been examined as P.W.-1, the Circle

Officer, Kahalgaon, who has been examined as P.W.-2, the Revenue

Karamcharai, Kahalgaon, who has been examined as P.W.-3 as also the

relevant documents lying with the appointing authority and the Executive

Magistrate has found the charge proved against the writ petitioner. The

aforesaid enquiry report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority. The

disciplinary authority had accepted the findings so recorded by the enquiry

officer and by following the proceeding has passed the order of punishment

on 06.11.2013. The said order is appended as Annexure-4 and on its perusal L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

it is evident that the disciplinary authority has considered the entire finding as

recorded by the enquiry officer alongwith the discussions and the due

consideration has also been made of the witnesses, the authorities, who have

been examined as P.W.-1, the sub-divisional officer, Kahalgaon, P.W.-2, the

Circle Officer, Kahalgaon, and P.W.-3, the Revenue Karamcharai, Kahalgaon.

The disciplinary authority has accepted the findings recorded, and come to the

conclusion about the fact that the writ petitioner has committed gross

misconduct and therefore dismissed the writ petitioner from service.

21. The aforesaid order dated 06.11.2013 was challenged in appeal but the

appellate authority has also refused to interfere with the order passed by the

disciplinary authority dated 06.11.2013 by rejecting the appeal as would

appear from Annexure-5. The writ petitioner has also preferred revision

against the order passed by the appellate authority but the same has also been

dismissed.

22. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the orders passed by the

disciplinary authority has invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in assailing all the orders but,

the learned Single Judge has also refused to interfere with the findings

recorded by the enquiry officer, the order of punishment passed by the

disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority,

against which the present appeal.

23. The arguments which has been advanced on behalf of the appellant

that the caste certificate was issued showing the writ petitioner to be the L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

member of the Gond caste which comes under the Scheduled Tribe category

is based upon the Cadastral survey. According to the writ petitioner the

aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered but we on

consideration of the finding recorded by the enquiry officer has found that the

enquiry officer has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and

accordingly a report was also called upon from the concerned circle officer

and further, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Circle Officer, and the Revenue

Karamchari has also been examined by providing an opportunity to the writ

petitioner to cross-examine them. The Circle Officer has corroborated the fact

about issuance of the caste certificate treating the writ petitioner to be a

member of Scheduled Tribe, since the caste certificate had been with the

reference of Gond caste. However the said caste certificate has been cancelled

by the Circle Officer on 18.08.2012 as contained in letter No. 696, as has been

referred by the Enquiry Officer as would appear from page 31 thereof, for

reference the said paragraph of the enquiry report is being referred herein:

"5. Jh lR;ukjk;.k jk;] dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV] vuqeM a y dgyxkao CW-01 us vius c;ku esa crk;k fd eSa dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV ds :i esa rSukr gw¡ rFkk vuqeM a y dk;kZy;

dgyxkao esa rSukr gw¡A Jh equh yky eaMy firk LoxhZ; iqydh yky eaMy xzke ,oa iksLV cq)pd] Fkkuk&dgyxkao] ftyk&Hkkxyiqj dk tkfr izek.k i= vuqeaMy dk;kZy; dgyxkao ls tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA bl laca/k esa miyC/k fjdksMZ ds vk/kkj ij vkosnu equh yky eaMy us Øekad&307 fnukad 22-03-2001 dks xksaM leqnk; dk lnL; crykrs gq, vuwlwfpr tutkfr dk izek.k i= izkIr fd;k FkkA ftl lac/a k esa gydk deZpkjh Jh vk'kqrks'k >k }kjk LFkkuh; yksxksa ls iwNrkN djus ds i'pkr~ Jh equh yky eaMy dks xaxksrk tkfr dk ik;k x;kA Jh equh yky eaMy tks fd orZeku esa dsvkSlqcy esa vkj{kd ds in ij rSukr gS dk Øekad&307 fnukad&22-03-2001 dks fuxZr tkfr izek.k i= vapy dk;kZy; }kjk jn~n fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj bl lac/a k esa vapykf/kdkjh dgyaxkao i=kad&696 fnukad 18-08-12 dks eSaus izfrgLrk{kj Hkh fd;k gSA vkjksih cy lnL; vkj{kd equh yky eaMy dk CW-01 ls izfrijh{k.k djus dk volj iznku fd;k x;k ijUrq vkjksih cy lnL; us iz'u iwNus ls euk fd;kA L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

24. This Court has put a pin pointed question upon the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant as to whether the order dated 18.08.2012, by

which, the caste certificate was cancelled which was issued on 22.03.2001

showing the writ petitioner to be of Gond caste, which comes under Sehedule

Tribe category, has been challenged before any Court of Law or any Forum.

25. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has

submitted that the aforesaid cancellation of the caste certificate has not been

challenged. This Court, therefore, on acceptance of the aforesaid fact about

not questioning the cancellation of the caste certificate which was issued on

22.03.2001on the basis of wrong declaration / misrepresentation committed

by the writ petitioner before the competent issuing authority, in furtherity has

cancelled the same and the same has not been challenged meaning thereby the

decision of cancellation of the caste certificate has been accepted by the writ

petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has considered the aforesaid aspect of the

matter, which was the basis of coming to the conclusion by the Enquiry

Officer, by giving a finding that charge has been found to be proved.

26. It further appears that the writ petitioner has been given an

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses i.e. C.W.-1, the Executive

Magistrate, Kahalgaon, but he has refused to examine on the issue of the

cancellation of the caste certificate. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, has given

a finding that the writ petitioner even though does not belong to the Gond

caste, which falls under the Scheduled Tribe category, but based upon the said

caste certificate he has got the appointment and therefore the charge as has

been levelled against the writ petitioner of gross-misconduct in getting

appointment based upon the false caste certificate has been found to be true.

L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

27. It further appears from the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer

that the writ petitioner himself has accepted that he does not belong to "Gond"

caste; rather, he belongs to the "Kharwar" caste. Further it appears from the

materials available on record, more particularly the finding recorded by the

Enquiry Officer and reference of the same made in the order passed by the

learned Single Judge that he claims to be of "Gangota" caste, therefore, the

writ petitioner is himself is not sure that to which caste he belongs. The order

passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the Appellate

Authority as also by the Revisional Authority. The question which has been

raised for non-consideration of the Cadastral Survey, according to our

considered view, cannot be said to have any substance, since, there is a

specific finding to that effect as has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer and

by taking into consideration the aforesaid record coupled with the decision of

the Circle Officer by which the caste certificate dated 22.03.2001 itself has

been cancelled, therefore, there is no occasion for the writ petitioner to claim

the service, when the caste certificate, basis upon which the appointment was

granted, itself is not in existence. The writ petitioner has also not challenged

the cancellation of the said caste certificate. The law has been settled that so

far the decision taken by the administrative authority in the matter of

disciplinary proceeding, the scope of judicial review is very limited, the same

can only be exercised, if there is any perversity or error apparent on the face

of the record.

28. Before proceeding further it requires to refer the scope of

judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the

matter of decision taken by the disciplinary authority.

L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

29. It is settled position of law that the High Court sitting under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India has got limited scope in

showing interference in the decision taken by the authorities.

30. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in

the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran as reported in AIR

2015 SC 545 wherein at paragraph 13, the following guidelines has

been laid down for showing interference in the decision taken by the

disciplinary authority and not to interfere with the decision, which

reads hereunder as:

"13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. 1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i). re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."

31. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Management of State

Bank of India vs. Smita Sharad Deshmukh and Anr. reported in

(2017) 4 SCC 75, has laid down therein that it is equally settled

position of law that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India can certainly interfere with the quantum of

punishment, if it is found disproportionate to the gravity of offence.

32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Industrial

Security Force and Ors. vs. Abrar Ali reported in AIR (2017) SC

200, has laid down the guidelines at paragraph 8 showing

interference by the High Court in the matter of punishment imposed

on conclusion of the departmental proceeding, which is quoted

herein below:

"8.Contrary to findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the High Court accepted the version of the Respondent that he fell ill and was being treated by a local doctor without assigning any reasons. It was held L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

by the Disciplinary Authority that the Unit had better medical facilities which could have been availed by the Respondent if he was really suffering from illness. It was further held that the delinquent did not produce any evidence of treatment by a local doctor. The High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts which tantamounts to re-appreciation of evidence. It is settled law that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 : (AIR 2011 SC 1931, Para 6), this Court held as follows:

"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.

In Union of India and Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 this Court held as follows:

"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the inquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

(a) the inquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b) the inquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; 13.(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the inquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."

L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022

33. This Court on the basis of the aforesaid guidelines and coming back to

the case is of the view that none of the guideline is available so as to interfere

with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and its acceptance by the

disciplinary authority. So as the three authorities have given the concurrent

finding, and as such on this ground also there is no reason to interfere with the

decision taken by the administrative authority, since, the High Court, in

exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

is not to reappraise the evidence, rather, it is only to see the perversity on the

face of law.

34. This Court after having discussed the legal scope and factual aspects

and coming to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the

learned Single Judge has considered the entire facts on merit and as such we

are of the view based upon the legal position as has been settled by the

Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the scope of judicial review, is of the view that

the order impugned require no interference.

35. Accordingly, this L.P.A is dismissed being devoid of merit.

                                                       (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)



D.S./J.Minj                                              (Navneet Kumar, J.)
NAFR