THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.3005 OF 2002 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner was working as Traffic Superintendent in Cargo Section of the respondent – M/s Indian Airlines Begumpet, Hyderabad. She was issued with the charge sheet dated 23.6.2001 alleging that on 2.2.2001 when she was performing her normal duty as Traffic Superintendent in the Main Booking Office, Indian Airlines, Hyderabad from 10-00 hrs to 17-35 hrs. was detained on over time for 1-30 minutes, from 17-35 to 19-05 hours and was entrusted with the job of attending tele-sales counter to attend telephone enquiries and reservation requests from the passengers of Indian Airlines Limited and also the tick selling agents, that though the name of the petitioner was written in the duty allocation register maintained in the Duty Manager’s room and in spite of being aware of the system of assignment of duties, the petitioner had left the office at 17-45 hours without performing duties as assigned and therefore, this amounts to dereliction of duty. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 3.2.2001. To the said charge, the petitioner submitted her explanation and not being satisfied with the same, domestic enquiry was ordered and the enquiry officer submitted the report and after considering the final submission of the petitioner, the impugned proceeding was passed imposing the punishment of reduction in basic pay to one increment with non-cumulative effect. The appeal filed by the petitioner also ended in rejection. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that she was not furnished with relevant documents to defend her case in the domestic enquiry, in spite of several requests and hence the domestic enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Her further grievance is that she was not informed about the allocation of over duty to her and that there is no evidence to this effect, but the enquiry officer held that the charge is proved and the same is liable to be set aside. With the contentions, she sought to set side the impugned order. 4. The respondents filed counter and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. It is well settled that this court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the enquiry officer. Only when it is shown that the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer are based on no evidence or are vitiated by perversity, this court would exercise the jurisdiction under judicial review. It is also well settled that this court cannot examine the sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer and it has to be seen whether there is some legal evidence to prove the charge leveled against the delinquent and in domestic enquiries, preponderance of probabilities have to be considered and strict rules of evidence, as required in criminal trial, cannot be made applicable. 6. In the present case, the charge against the petitioner is that she left the office at 2.2.2001 at 17-45 hours in spite of she being entrusted with the job of over time for 1-30 minutes from 17-35 hours to 19-05 hours. Though the petitioner pleaded that she was not supplied with the relevant documents in spite of her requests, the said averment was specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and it is stated that the petitioner was provided with full opportunity by furnishing the relevant documents and that she was also given opportunity in compliance with the principles of natural justice and she was also allowed to cross-examine the management witnesses and participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary i.e., the evidence of Mrs. S.Sagar, M.W.1, M.V.Ramana Rao, who were on duty on 2.2.2001 along with the petitioner and considering the Duty Roster/Allocation sheet, and the written statements of Mrs. S.Sagar and Mr. Rama Rao, under Exs.M.E.1 to M.E.-3, found the petitioner guilty for the charge leveled against. Denying the averments made in the counter affidavit, the petitioner has not filed any reply. In view of these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, which had already been given effect to. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. AVS -------------------------------- 23—06—2011