R.P.Suryavanshi vs Hon.High Court Of Judicature At ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 16399 MP

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                       AT JABALPUR
                                                                       BEFORE
                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                                                                 CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                                             &
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                                   ON THE 12th OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                                    WRIT PETITION No.4508 of 2001

                           BETWEEN:-

                           R.P.   SURYAVANSHI     S/O  SHRI    M.L.
                           SURYAVANSHI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
                           PROCESS WRITER, COURT OF DISTRICT AND
                           SESSIONS JUDGE, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI MADHUR SHUKLA - ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

                           AND

                           1.     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA
                                  PRADESH AT JABALPUR, THROUGH ITS
                                  REGISTRAR    GENERAL,   JABALPUR
                                  (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.     THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS                             JUDGE,
                                  DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI ASHISH SHROTI - ADVOCATE)
                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    This petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
                           Vishal Mishra passed the following:




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 12/19/2022
6:23:56 PM
                                                                 2




                                                          ORDER

The present writ petition is of the year 2001. As the matter is pending for the last more than two decades, this Court is inclined to hear the matter finally.

2. From the records, it is seen that the challenge in the present petition is being made to an order dated 20.04.2000 passed by the respondent No.2 terminating the services of the petitioner as well as to an order dated 09.02.2001 passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a Process Writer in the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-II, Dewas. A complaint was made by the then First Civil Judge Class-II in the month of February/March, 1998 to the District and Sessions Judge, Dewas supported by the statements of Shri Saket Vyas and one Shri Shiv Narayan, who happened to be Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Court Moharir. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner levelling as many as six charges. The petitioner submitted a reply to the same and finding the reply to be unsatisfactory, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer were appointed. After completion of enquiry, the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report on 22.04.1999 and the same was accepted by the then District and Sessions Judge, Dewas and vide order dated 03.05.1999 imposed punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed directing the District and Sessions Judge, Dewas to provide an opportunity of hearing after supplying of necessary documents. Thereafter, a show cause

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 12/19/2022 6:23:56 PM

notice was issued to the petitioner, to which, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 04.04.2000. The District and Sessions Judge, Dewas passed the order dated 20.04.2000 removing the petitioner from services. Against which, a departmental appeal was preferred before the respondent No.1, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, the present petition.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the original complaint made by the First Civil Judge Class-II did not contain any allegation regarding drawing of sketch or hurling abuses and allegations were with regard to late coming, deliberate exclusion of certain words on sentence while recording testimony, lack of speed in typing and avoiding official work etc. However, later on, another complaint was submitted levying the allegations of drawing sketch and hurling of obscene abuses including the statements ADPO and Court clerk which were recorded by the complainant in the capacity as First Civil Judge Class - II. These statements have been admitted in the enquiry but the petitioner was never allowed to cross-examine these witnesses. Therefore, the entire departmental enquiry was vitiated.

5. It is his case that due to malafide intention and in a predetermined manner the departmental enquiry has been initiated and conducted against him. No proper opportunity of hearing was granted to examine or cross- examine the witnesses. The Inquiry Officer has not recorded his findings on each charges, but has given a generalized finding that all the charges leveled against the petitioner have been proved. Even after remand, the learned District Judge did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence and the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and has passed the impugned order of dismissal from service in most mechanical manner. Initially, allegations regarding drawing of sketch of the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 12/19/2022 6:23:56 PM

complainant was not a part of the charge-sheet, but afterwards it was added to the charge-sheet. The Inquiry Officer, taking into account the statements of two witnesses recorded by the complainant herself and without giving opportunity to cross-examine them, has submitted its report. Virtually, no free trial has been conducted, therefore, there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice. Even from the perusal of the charges which have been leveled against the petitioner, the punishment which has been imposed regarding termination of the services of the petitioner is highly disproportionate. The respondents could have imposed a lesser punishment to the petitioner or could have even issued a warning to him looking to the nature of charges which have been leveled against him. Therefore, he has sought interference in the impugned orders.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned orders and has placed the records of the departmental enquiry before the Court. It is his case that ample opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner to submit his defence. No procedural error could be pointed out to show that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner. The record reflects that the petitioner submitted the response to the show cause notice issued to him. The Inquiry Officer found the charges leveled against the petitioner to be proved. A complaint was made with regard to indecent behavior and uncalled for interference in the court proceedings against the petitioner. The complaint was taken note of by the authorities and the enquiry was conducted against him after due notice to him. However, the petitioner did not appear and requested for adjournment either by sending his brother or his friend. The Inquiry Officer recorded the statement of the complainant and one Mr. Abdul Sayyed Khan, Assistant Account. A

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 12/19/2022 6:23:56 PM

preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 22.04.1999 finding the allegations made against the petitioner to be proved. The disciplinary authority having been satisfied with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, has imposed punishment of dismissal from services. The appeal preferred regarding the same has also been dismissed. The appellate authority has tested the entire material placed on record, as no other ground apart from the malafides and proper opportunity of hearing being granted to the petitioner has been raised by the petitioner therefore, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

7. The law with respect to the interference in the cases of departmental enquiry is clear to the extent that there is a limited scope for interference in such matters. Counsel appearing for respondents has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to interference in the departmental enquiry in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Dalbir Singh reported in (2021) 11 SCC 321 and in the case of Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610. He has prayed for dismissal of writ petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

9. On perusal of the record, it is seen that there are limited grounds on which the challenge is being made to the impugned orders. That, no proper opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was given and factum of bias. The record shows that the preliminary enquiry was conducted on the complaint made against the petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint were found proved in the preliminary enquiry. Therefore, a decision was taken to initiate a departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 12/19/2022 6:23:56 PM

10. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner levying six charges against him, which reads as under:

";g fd vki fnukad 25-11-1997 ls 19-05-1998 rd rRdkyhu izFke O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ 2 lqJh Hkkouk lk/kks] orZeku r`rh; O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ&1] nsokl ds U;k;ky;ksa dFku ys[kd ds in ij dk;Zjr FksA bl dk;Z vof/k esa vkids }kjk vius drZO; dk Hkyh&Hkkafr fuoZgu ugha fd;k x;k rFkk fuEukuqlkj U;k;ky; dh xfjek ds foifjr dk;Z fd;k%& 1- U;k;ky; ds cksMZ ij U;k;k/kh'k dks lykg nsus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k Fkk o chp&chp esa ckr dkV dj mUgsa o i{kdkjksa dks lykg nh tkrhA 2- U;k;ky; esa vfHk;qDr dks vFkZn.M gksus ij vfHk;qDr dh eksVj ls ikVZl~ cSpdj vFkZn.M tek djkus dh lykg nh tkrh Fkh o bl izdkj vUxZy ckrksa ls i{kdkjksa o U;k;ky; dh xfjek ds foifjr izHkko iM+rk FkkA 3- U;k;ky; esa o Vksd a [kqnZ U;k;ky; esa U;k;k/kh'k ds cksMZ ij cSBus ds ckn 15&20 fefuV ckn U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksrs FksA rFkk le; ij U;k;ky;

esa mifLFkr ugha jgrs FksA 4- dFku vkfn Vafdr djus ds nkSjku dbZ 'kCnksa o okD;ksa dks Vafdr ugha djrs Fks rFkk vfHkHkk"kd ds cpko ds eq[; 'kCn rFkk okD; Vafdr ugha fd;k tkrk FkkA 5- vki vius gkFk dh pksV crkdj dk;Z djus esa vleFkZrk O;Dr djrs Fks rFkk vf/kd dk;Z djus esa nnZ gksuk crkdj dk;Z ugha djrs FksA o Vafdr dh xfr /kheh j[krs FksA bl izdkj vkius vius drZO; dk Bhd ls ikyu u dj vius drZO; ds izfr ykijokgh o vuq'kklughurk dh xbZ gSA f}rh;% ;g fd vkids }kjk vkidh ltkrh; rRdkyhu O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k oxZ&2] lqJh Hkkouk lk/kks ds fo:) U;k;ky; ds ckgj v'yhy ekW&cgu dh xanh&xanh xkfy;ka ,-Mh-ih-vks- Jh O;kl o dksVZ eqa'kh ds le{k nh tkrh Fkh] ftlls U;k;ky; o U;k;k/kh'k ds lEeku o xfjek dks gkfu igqaph ;g dk;Z vkids dk;Z o vkpj.k ds foifjr gSaA r`rh;% ;g fd vkids }kjk ,d gh ltkrh; O;ogkj U;k;k/kh'k dks viekfur djus gsrq 'kkldh; dk;Z ds le; vius ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dk js[kkfp= vkfn cuk;s tkrs Fks o ml ij lhy yxkbZ xbZ gSA vkids }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k Fkk fd esa ftl cksMZ ij jgk gwWa ;fn ogka efgyk gS rks og esjh gks tkrh gS o eSus ,slh dbZ efgykvksa dks fudky fn;k gS bldks Hkh fuiVk nwx a k bl izdkj v'yhy ckrs cksyrs Fks o viekutud Hkk"kk dk iz;ksx djrs Fks ftlls mUgsa ekufld :i ls ijs'kku gksrh Fkh o mudk U;k;ky;hu dk;Z Hkh izHkkfor gksrk FkkA mDr d`R; Hkh vkpj.k fu;eksa ds foijhr gSaA prqFkZ% ;g fd vki bl dk;kZy; dh LFkkiuk ij r`rh; Js.kh deZpkjh lgk;d xzM s &3 ds in ij dk;Zjr gksdj vki e0iz0 'kkldh; deZpkjh vkpj.k fu;e

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 12/19/2022 6:23:56 PM

ds vUrXkZr''kkflr gSA lkFk gh le; le; ij izpfyr iz'kkldh; fn'kk funsZ'kksa ds vUrxZr vius vkpj.k ,oa dk;Z O;ogkj djus gsrq oS/k :i ls vkc) gSA vkids }kjk fnukad 08-09-1998 dks lqLFkkfir iz'kkldh; izfdz;k ,oa i=kpkj u djrs gqosaA jftLVªkj tujy] mPp U;k;ky; e0iz0 tcyiqj dks vius LFkkukUrj ds lac/a k esa ijLij Mk;jsDV i=kpkj fd;kA tcfd fu;e ds vuqlkj izz'uxr i=kpkj vFkok vH;kosnu vkidks mPp U;k;ky; vius ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dk;kZy; izeq[k ds ek/;e ls djuk pkfg, rFkk vkidks bl laca/k esa iwoZ esa bl ckcn funsZf'kr Hkh fd;k tk pqdk FkkA vr% vkidk ;g d`R; iqLrd ifji= Hkkx&2 dzekad&8 fu;e 20 nks lanfHkZr 'kklukns'kksa ds foijhr gksdj e0iz0 vkpj.k fu;e 1965 flfoy lfoZl daMDV :Yl 1965 ds fu;e %%rhu%% 3 dk mYya?ku gksdj e0iz0 flfoy lsok oxhZdj.k fu;a=.k rFkk vihy fu;e 1966 ds fu;e&10 ds varxZr n.Muh; gSA iape% ;g fd vkids }kjk fnukad 08-09-1998 dks vkjksi dza&1 esa of.kZr izfdz;k ds vuqlj.k u djrs gqos ekuuh; eq[; U;k;kf/kifr e0iz0 mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj }kjk jftLVªkj tujy e0iz0 mPp U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds ekuuh; jkT;iky egksn; e0iz0 'kklu Hkksiky }kjk eq[; lfop egksn; e0iz0 'kklu Hkksiky %%3%% izeq[k lfpo] fof/k ,oa fo/kk;h dk;Z foHkkx e0iz0 'kklu Hkksiky %%4%% ftyk/kh'k ftyk nsokl vkSj dk;kZy; dks vius ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds ek/;e ls i=kpkj u djrs gqos lh/ks i=kpkj fd;kA vH;kosnu izLrqr fd;k x;kA vkidk ;g d`R; Hkh vkjksi dza&1 esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gksdj vkjksi dza&1 esa mYysf[kr fu;eksa ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k fd;k x;k gSA "k"Ve~% ;g fd vkidk LFkkukUrj U;k;ky; nsokl ls ckxyh U;k;ky; esa vkns'k dzekad 427 fnukad 07-08-1998 }kjk fd;k x;k Fkk vkidks fnukad 17- 08-1998 dks mDr U;k;ky; esa dk;Z ij mifLFkr gksuk Fkk ijUrq mlds i'pkr fnukad 18-08-1998 ls lrr~ vodk'k ij py jgs gS bl chp vkidk LFkkUkkUrj bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k dza 435 fnukad 20-08-1998 ds }kjk iqu% U;k;ky; [kkarxs kao fd;k x;k Fkk fdUrq vkids }kjk mDr vkns'k dk Hkh vHkh rd ikyu ugha fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh vkns'k dh mis{kk dh tkus ds mns~'; ls vkids }kjk fnukad 18-08-1998 ls 02-09-1998 rd dk o fnukad 23-09- 1998 ls fnukad 22-10-1998 vkSj fnukad 23-10-1998 ls fnukad 22-11-1998 rd lrr~ vodk'k ysrs vk jgs gSA lkFk gh fnukad 03-09-1998 ls 22-09-1998 rd vkids }kjk fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vodk'k gsrq dksbZ vkosnu i= Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA vkidks ;g funsZ'k nsus ds ckn Hkh fd ewy fpfdRlk izek.k i= ;ksX; ek/;e ls izLrqr djsA ijUrq mDr vkns'kksa dk ikyu u dj foyac ls vkosnu lkh/ks QksVksdkih fpfdRlk izek.k i= dh yxkdj izLrqr dj jgs gS ,oa ewy izek.k i= funsZ'kksa ds i'pkr Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;s x;s gSA vkids }kjk vukf/kd`r :i ls vkns'kksa dh mis{kk djus ds mnns'; ls vlR; vk/kkjksa ij

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 12/19/2022 6:23:56 PM

vR;f/kd vodk'k fcuk iwoZ Lohd`fr o vuqefr ds vuqifLFkr jgdj ckj&ckj vodk'k fy;k tk jgk gS fd e0iz0 vodk'k fu;e dk mYy?kau gksdj e0iz0 vodk'k fu;e ds fu;e 13 dk mYy?kau gSA vkids mDr d``R; e0iz0 vkpj.k fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 3 ,oa vodk'k fu;e 13 ds foijhr gksdj e0iz0flfoy lsok ofxZdj.k fu;a=.k rFkk vihy fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 10 ds varxZr n.Muh; gSA"

11. The Inquiry Officer after conclusion of the departmental enquiry arrived at a conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner were found to be proved and held the petitioner guilty of all the charges leveled against the petitioner vide enquiry report dated 22.04.1999 which was placed before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has gone into the entire material placed before him and has arrived at a conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner are fully proved and, therefore, vide order dated 03.05.1999 imposed punishment of removal from the service, which was tested before the appellate forum and the appellate authority has partly allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the District and Sessions Judge. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 31.03.2000 was issued to the petitioner which was replied by him. Learned District and Sessions Judge after considering the entire material on record and the reply of the petitioner, has passed the impugned order dated 20.04.2000 removing the petitioner from services. An appeal was filed, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.02.2001.

12. That the law with respect to the interference in the cases of departmental enquiry is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Gunasekaran (supra) has laid down guidelines regarding interference in cases of departmental enquiry holding as under:-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 12/19/2022 6:23:56 PM

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, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry 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 Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 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;

(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

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

(i) reappreciate 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;

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 12/19/2022 6:23:56 PM

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

13. The aforesaid aspect was again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalbir Singh (supra) wherein, it is held as under:-

24.........held that the degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. It was held as under:

11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules.

In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of preponderance of probability. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 12/19/2022 6:23:56 PM

facto absolve him from the liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside. (Emphasis Supplied)

25.... .... .... ....

8. ......The purpose of departmental inquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects. The criminal prosecution is launched for an offense for violation of a duty, the offender owes to the society or for breach of which law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. So crime is an act of commission in violation of law or of omission of public duty. The departmental inquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service. It would, therefore, be expedient that the disciplinary proceedings are conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guidelines as inflexible rules in which the departmental proceedings may or may not be stayed pending trial in the criminal cases against the delinquent officer. Each case requires to be considered in the backdrop of its own facts and circumstances. There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental inquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated questions of fact and law. Offense generally implies infringement of public duty, as distinguished from mere private rights punishable under criminal law. When the trial for a criminal offense is conducted it should be in accordance with proof of the offense as per the evidence defined under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [in short the Evidence Act]. The converse is the case of departmental inquiry. The inquiry in a departmental proceeding relates to conduct or breach of duty of the delinquent officer to punish him for his misconduct defined under the relevant statutory rules or law. That the strict standard of proof or applicability of the Evidence Act stands excluded is a settled legal position. ...Under these circumstances, what is required to be seen is whether the departmental inquiry would seriously prejudice the delinquent in his defense at the trial in a criminal case. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL KUMAR JHARIYA Signing time: 12/19/2022 6:23:56 PM

14. Thus, in view of the settled proposition of law and the fact that ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner and he has participated in the departmental enquiry, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. This Court cannot sit as an appellate/revisional authority to look into the entire evidence recorded during departmental enquiry. This Court can only look into the mode/process adopted by the authorities conducting the departmental enquiry. The impugned order regarding termination of the petitioner from service is a well reasoned and justified order, which does not call for any interference. There is a limited scope of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

15. The petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs.

                                 (RAVI MALIMATH)                                (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                   CHIEF JUSTICE                                     JUDGE
                           SJ




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 12/19/2022
6:23:56 PM