LPA No.291 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.291 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.02.2011 Rajan Mittal … Appellant Versus State of Haryana and Others … Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana. ***** M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letter Patent is directed against order dated 27.04.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that there is unexplained delay of 7 years in filing the writ petition. The delay has been counted from the release of the order of the Appellate Authority passed on 29.01.2003. The learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that no plausible and valid reason has been given to explain the inordinate delay. Even otherwise, it has been found in the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the ground of challenge is non-appreciation of evidence and arguments that there was misreading of evidence has been rejected on the ground that the Courts are not to act as Court of Appeal over the finding of the Inquiry officer. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that view expressed by the learned Single Judge is unexceptional and does not call for any interference. Even if, the delay is LPA No.291 of 2011 (O&M) -2- ignored, the finding of the Inquiry officer concerning that the tampering with the dying declaration cannot be interfered with and the argument repeated before us that there is misreading of evidence, cannot be sustained. It is well- settled that quantum of evidence cannot be the basis to over turn the findings of an enquiry officer although findings without evidence might be set aside. It is nobody’s case that there is no evidence to sustain the findings. 3. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 4. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed, we do not wish to pass any order with regard to application for condonation of delay in filing/refilling of the appeal. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE FEBRUARY 17, 2011 ( T.P.S. MANN) rajan JUDGE