IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5302 of 2010 1. RAMCHARAN PRASAD VERMA S/O LATE BINDESHWARI PRASAD VERMA, R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR, P.S - MATIHANI, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI, AT PRESENT ANCHAL AMIN, KHODAWANPUR BLOCK , P.S - KHODAWANPUR, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, MUNGER. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 4. CONDUCTING OFFICER CUM DIRECTOR NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME, BEGUSARAI. ----------- 2/ 23/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 18.3.2006 withholding four increments with cumulative effect, as affirmed by the appellate order dated 10.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence was taken behind the back of the petitioner and that he was not furnished documents on which the prosecution had relied during the departmental proceeding. He had raised this question in appeal which was rejected. The submission is that the petitioner has, in fact, been punished for acts that he had not done. In a departmental proceeding it would not be the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with the finding of facts by re-assessment of or re-appreciation of evidence unless the findings be perverse. No such ground has - 2 - presently been urged. In his reply to the second show cause notice the petitioner did not urge any grounds of procedural irregularities or non-furnishing of documents when before the appellate court it has been raised in a very generalized form. No copy of the memo. of appeal has been brought on record. From the recitals contained in the appellate order it appears that he raised a general objection without reference to any specific documents or witnesses. On the contrary, the memo. of charge contains the list of evidence detailing the descriptions of documents on which the charges were based. There shall be a presumption under Section-114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act that the official act of service of the charges along with evidence was duly performed. It was a rebuttable presumption, but the petitioner has not been able to rebut the presumption. This Court therefore finds no reason to interfere with the punishment or the appellate order. The writ application stands dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)