WP(C) 5875/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTG.) MR. A.K. GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH This petition seeks quashing of order of dismissal dated 30.4.2011 passed agains t the petitioner and also the order dated 5.8.2011 of the Appellate Authority di smissing the appeal. The petitioner was employed in the establishment of this Court as Lower Division Assistant in the year 1977 and from time to time, he was given promotion. At th e relevant point of time, i.e, on 15.09.2010, he was posted as Superintendent of Filing Section, where CCTV Cameras are also installed. He was given a charge sh eet alleging that he took illegal money from different persons as captured by Ca mera No.6 and Camera No.3. The petitioner denied the charge. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and held the charge to be proved. During the enquiry, 4(four) witnesses were examined, namely, (1) Mazed Ali, the then Registrar (Admn.) as PW 1, Paritosh Sarma, Wireless Operator of CCTV Camera Control Room as PW 2, Pra kash Sarma, System Analyst as PW 3 and Mr. Gautam Kalita, Assistant System Analy st as PW 4. The evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 was to the effect that information was received that the delinquent was taking bribe and the evidence of System Analys ts ie, PW 3 and PW 4, was of recording the clippings in CDs containing the elect ronic evidence of taking money by the delinquent. The delinquent, in his written statement (Ext. 4), admitted the fact of taking of money. However, he took the plea that the money was by way of return of loan which he had advanced to differ ent persons and not by way of illegal gratification. The Enquiry Officer, after analyzing the evidence, disbelieved the version of th e petitioner and held the charge to be proved. After due procedure, on considera tion of the report of the Enquiry Officer and the version of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a case of no evidence and the enquiry report was perverse and thus, the charge was not established. The E nquiry Officer has merely gone by the evidence showing payment of money which di d not necessarily mean that money was paid by way of illegal gratification. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner . The Enquiry Officer has analyzed the entire evidence and has come to a categor ical conclusion that the money, which was accepted by the petitioner, was by way of illegal gratification and not by way of return of loan. It is well settled that interference with the finding of an Enquiry Officer is c alled for only if the finding is based on no evidence or is irrational. Referenc e in this regard may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bidyab husan Mahapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779 (CB), UOI v. HC Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 (CB), Bon gaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Girish Chandra Sarma, AIR 2007 SC 286 0 and Apparel Export Promotion Council v. AK Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625. In the present case, the petitioner himself admitted that he received money from different persons. His version that he received the money not by way of illegal gratification but by way of return of loan has not been found to be acceptable. The Enquiry Officer after due consideration of the circumstances on record, hav ing rejected the version put forward by the delinquent, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be held to be irrational or perverse. Thus, no ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. The writ pe tition is dismissed.