HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR W.P. No.11878/03 Premlal .. .. Petitioner Vs./- State of M.P. and others .. .. Respondents ------------ For the Petitioner : Shri R.N. Shrivastava, Advocate For the Respondents: Shri Sudesh Verma, Government Advocate =============== Present: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE ---------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER (11.11.2011) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the orders dated 30.11.1995 and 30.1.1996 respectively, by which the penalty of removal from service was imposed and the aforesaid order has been upheld in appeal. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the order dated 22.10.1996 by which in the mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner, the penalty imposed on petitioner has been converted into compulsory retirement. 2. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner held the post of Constable and at the relevant time was posted in Police Station Katni. One Narendra Pandey was an accused in connection with an offence under Section 306/34 of I.P.C. and was detained in sub- jail, Katni, and died in custody. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed a Magisterial enquiry to be held. In the Magisterial enquiry, the petitioner as well as other employees of sub-jail, Katni were found to be guilty. A charge-sheet dated 9.8.1995 was issued to the petitioner containing inter-alia charges that during the period from 20.5.1994 to 5.6.1994. The petitioner illegally visited the sub- jail, Katni and thereby violated Police Regulation 64(5) of the M.P. Police Regulation. Another charge which was levelled against the petitioner was that he threatened the accused of Crime No.119/94 with a view to save his relatives. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show- cause notice. In the departmental enquiry which was initiated against the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 18.10.1995. 2 3. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show- cause notice to the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and by order dated 30.11.1995, imposed the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 30.1.1996. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner preferred the mercy appeal before the Inspector General of Police. The Inspector General of Police took a sympathetic view of the matter and converted the penalty into compulsory retirement. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has visited this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse. The Enquiry Officer has not taken into account the statement of independent witness namely Raj Kumar, who was examined on behalf of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the petitioner in support of his case has examined one witness namely A.P. Sondhiya, In- 3 charge Jailor, who had stated that the petitioner did not visit the sub-jail, Katni at the relevant time. The material evidence available on record has been ignored by the Enquiry Officer which renders the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer perverse. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that the enquiry has been held against the petitioner in accordance with the Rules. The petitioner has neither been able to make out any case of violation of principles of natural justice nor infraction of any statutory provision. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on appreciation of evidence on record. The charges levelled against the petitioner were serious in nature and were found to be proved. However, the Inspector General of Police has taken a sympathetic view of the whole matter and has converted the punishment of removal of service to compulsory retirement. No case for interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. 6. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. It is well settled in law that the 4 Courts will not act as an appellate Court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry 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 consideration. See: B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749; Union of India Vs. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463; Bank of India Vs. Degala Suryanarayana (1999) 5 SCC 762, High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shashikant S. Patil 5 and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584. 7. In the backdrop of well settled legal position, I have gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is relevant to mention here that a Magisterial enquiry was ordered into the incident by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the Magisterial enquiry, it has been found that one accused namely Narendra Pandey, who was in confinement for an offence under Section 306/34 of I.P.C., died in custody. It was also found that petitioner went to Jail and threatened the aforesaid Narendra Pandey and provoked the other employees of the Jail to beat Narendra Pandey, as the petitioner's relatives were accused in an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. in which aforesaid Narendra Pandey was a witness. The petitioner pressurised and threatened Narendra Pandey and got him beaten by other employees of the sub-jail so as to pressurize him to compromise the matter with the relatives of the petitioner. In the course of the enquiry, the statement of witnesses Puroshottamlal Pandey, Ayoudhya Pandey, Lalla Sahu and Rajkumar Vishwakarma were recorded. The Enquiry Officer after 6 meticulous appreciation of material available on record has recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner has been found to be proved. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer by no stretch of imagination can either be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit over the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, as if it is exercising an appellate jurisdiction. The petitioner has neither been able to demonstrate either any violation of principles of natural justice or violation of any statutory rules. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Aradhe) a Judge 7