IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.120 of 2001 MD. MOBINUDDIN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 16.5.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By virtue of the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner with regard to his omission and commission while conducting a raid on the shop of one Ramanand Yadav and purportedly seizure of 70 bags of sugar he was ordered to be demoted. It is alleged that only 33 bags were carried to the Police Station and the balance 37 bags were left with the said Ramanand Yadav for a consideration of Rs.25,000/-. Not only this it is further stated that out of 33 bags brought to the police station a fresh seizure list of only 25 bags were shown and eight bags were misappropriated by this petitioner and one Vijay Shankar Mishra, another Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. Based on the evidence which came during the departmental enquiry and not finding the explanations offered by the petitioner satisfactory punishment of reversion of the petitioner from the post of Sub Inspector of Police to Assistant Sub Inspector of Police was passed. Petitioner against the order of punishment moved the superior authorities in appeal but the authorities did not find any cogent reason to interfere with the order of punishment. Effort to beget relief by the petitioner even in the revisional jurisdiction has been negated because the 2 authorities based on the findings have come to a conclusion that the order of punishment was in consonance with the accusations and the guilt. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are not categorical findings and there is no sufficiency of evidence to reach to this conclusion. In fact not all witnesses who were vital or relevant for finding of guilt were ever summoned or produced before the enquiry officer and these are mere conjectures and surmises. He also submits that it is a case of false implication and further discrimination has been caused because it is only he who has been punished and the other co- accused, namely, Vijay Shankar Mishra has got way scot free. Learned counsel for the State, however, refutes this position. According to him the finding of guilt has been recorded against the petitioner after due departmental enquiry and evidences have come home proving the wrongdoing of the petitioner. The matter was enquired into by the senior officers of the district and only when the basic, prima facie, materials emerged that the departmental proceeding was conducted against the petitioner. Even otherwise a departmental proceeding is not like a criminal trial and the rules of evidence as per the Evidence Act are not applicable in such matters. If prima facie based on the basic evidence it is found that the allegations are borne out then the same ought not to be interfered by the High Court by trying to indulge in reappraisal of evidence under Article 226 of 3 the Constitution of India. Even the superior officers while exercising powers under appellate and revisional jurisdiction have not found any legal infirmity. In fact they have also taken note of the basic defence which has been put by the petitioner in which major loopholes have been found that it is a case of false accusation or implication. Looking at the concurrent findings recorded against the petitioner, he has been lucky to save his job and get away only with a punishment of reversion. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders concerned. This writ application is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)