(^) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSGARH AT BILASPUR B.: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTIC^ SUNIL KUMARSIIfiiA& . iTON'BLEMrJIUSTISEBADHE SHYAM SHiARMA^ WRrTAPPEALMa33480tl APPELLANT Jamadar Singh, S/o tate Shri Gorelal Singh, Aged about 45 years, presently workir^ on the post of cashier, Surguja Keshetrlya Gramhi Bank, Branch, Soriliat, Distrtet Korea (C.G.) Versus , gESPONDCNTS 1 4 Surguja Kshatriya Gramin Bank, Througb the President/Appellate AuthQrKy, Surguja Kshetriya Gi^mih Bank, Sangam Gali, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) General Manager/ Administrative Offfcer, Swgyp tehetriya Gramin Bank, Head Offlce Sangam Gali Ambikapur, District Surguja (?•°•) Enquiry Officer/Branch Manager, Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Branch Kunrda, District Surguja (C.G.) r Branch IVIanager, Su^uja Keshtriya Gramin Bank, Branch Kelliari, District Korea (C.G.) WRFT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1t OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGHCbURtiARPiXLTODiViSION BENCHtACT.2006 ' Appearance: Mr. A.N. Pandey, Counsel forthe appellant. ORALORDER BMBBI ..';-~<?x M., '1"1 2.0, ..; 1-^:2 ^ WBTAPPEAL N0.^4/2011 ORAL ORDER (19^7.2011) The folldwing order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Heard. Appellant - Jamadar Singh was posted as Qerk in the respondent -Bank. On the relevant date i.e. 24.10.2006, he was incharge of the concerned Branch of the resppndent- Bank. On account of certain T.V. clippings, heclosed ttie Bank on 24.10.2006, whereas, the office has declared holiday on 25.10.20)6. On such action, ashowrause nottce was issued, reply was fited and thereafter, a Departmental Enquiry was inltiated against the appellant and he wasservai with the charge sheet on 09.11.2006. The cterge sheet was qyite specifte. Reply to the charge sheet was filed, in whfch, the appellant admitted the fact that he ctosed the Bank and remained absent, though there was no proper formal prder from fhe Bank authorities to observe holiday on 24.10,2006. After completion of enquiry, a report was submitted and ultimately, apunlshment ofreduction of one increment ofthe appellant from the pay scale for a period of 1 year was imposad.An appeal was filed against the said order passaj in the departmental enqufry, but the appeal was ateo dismissed. After dismissal of the appeal by order dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petition), the appellant flled W.P.<S) No.1657/2011. The teamed SlngleJudge afterconsidering,the entire facts on record held that there was no inflrmity in the appellate order as also the findings reeorded by the concemed authorities and therefore, the writ petition was dismiss«l. Leamed counsel for the appellant argued that the authorities have erred in law in passing the orders against the appellant and the learned Single Judge also erred io dismissing his writ petltion. t i! iHSI!HiS -•s.; ^s^ WRn- APPEAI. N0,234^011 We have gone through the records of Uie writ petition as also the writ appeal. The writ Court after peru^it of the pleadings and documents appendwl thereto has hetd that the appellant failed to establish his case before the appellate auttiortty and also that the aforesaid facts were not denied by the appellanf eyen before the writ Court. The writ Gourt farther observed that it was not a case of no evidence or recordir^ of a perveise finding by the enquiry authority, as the same was based on admission of the charges by theappellarat. The writ Court also observed that the appellate authority has consktered all the aspects of the matter in its true perspective and there a^sgars to be no illegality in the order passed. ; In State Bank of Bffcaner and Ja/our ys. Wero/ CAand Malwaw. fWII) 4 S.C.C. 584, the Supreme Court observed inpara 7 as under: "It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidenceled in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the greund that another view is possiUe on the material on record. (fthe enquiry has been fairiy and properly held aml the findings are based on eviderwe, the question of adequacy of the evklence or the reliable nature of the evidenee will not be grounds for interfering wilh the findings In departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere wfth findings of ftict recorded fn departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are cteariy perveree. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting-reasonably coyld have amved at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts wlll however interfere with the flndings in disclplinary matters, if principles of natural justlee or statutory regulations have been violated or IT the order is IIIU Q^ WRnTAPPEAL N0234/2011 found to be arbitrary, caprtcious, mata fide or based on extraneous conslderations. (Vide B.C. ChaturvwB v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749, Union of ladla v. G.GanayuUiam, (1997) 7 SCC 463, fian/c of Mia v. Degate Sufyanarayana, (^999) 5SCC 762 and Hlgh Court of Judicatare at Bombay v. ShasliUont S.^PaW, (2000) 1 SCC 416." Considering the above facts and^ circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity In the impugned order passed by the leamed Single Judge warranting interference In this intra Court appeal. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sd/- i R.S. SHARMA. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge