WA 225/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.UPADHYAY Ranjan Gogoi, J This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.6 .2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a proceeding registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 509/2009. In the said writ petition, the appellant as the writ petitioner, had assailed an order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the Managi ng Director of the Lower Assam Electricity Distribution Company Limited by which the punishment of dismissal from service with immediate effect was imposed on t he appellant. It may be noticed, at this stage, that simultaneously with the wri t petition a departmental appeal was filed by the appellant. In the said appeal, by order dated 2.3.2009, the punishment of dismissal was altered to one of comp ulsory retirement. 2. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed for the purp oses of the present adjudication are set out below: At the relevant point of time the appellant/ writ petitioner was working as a Deputy Accounts Officer, Lower Assam Electricity Distribution Comp any Limited and was posted at the Basistha Electrical Sub Division. It appears t hat on 11.6.2007 the appellant had written a letter to the Chairman of the Assam State Electricity Board (ASEB) alleging immoral relationship between one Anjan Chutia, a Junior Engineer in the establishment of the Basistha Electrical Sub Di vision and the respondent No.2 in the appeal, Smt. Moni Das Mahanta. When the af oresaid fact came to the knowledge of the respondent No.2, the said respondent a lso lodged a written complaint dated 13.6.2007 before the Chairman, ASEB against the present appellant complaining of sexual harassment at the work place by the appellant. Though the matter appears to have been amicably settled between the parties at the intervention of their colleagues and high officials, in the issue dated 16.9.2007 of a vernacular daily ’Aji’ published from Guwahati, a news ite m appeared having the same contents and tenor as of the letter dated 11.6.2007 o f the appellant to the Chairman of the ASEB. It also appears that around this ti me 26 employees of the Basistha Electrical Sub Division jointly submitted a comp laint to the Chairman of the Board alleging, inter alia, sexual harassment cause d by the appellant to the respondent No.2. On receipt of the aforesaid complaint the Chairman of the Board constituted a Three-Member Committee by the order dat ed 5.10.2007 to go into the complaint filed by the 26 employees. The Committee u ndertook a detailed investigation of the matter and after hearing both the parti es i.e. the appellant and the respondent No.2 as well as the other persons invol ved, came to a conclusion adverse to the appellant and suggested that department al action should be taken against the appellant. The appellant, thereafter, was placed under suspension by order dated 26.6.2008 and, thereafter, following the Court’s order passed in a proceeding registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 2194/2 008, a departmental proceeding was drawn up against the appellant by chargesheet dated 9.7.2008 containing the following charges: 1. Disorderly conduct in connection with employment and acts subversive of disc ipline. 2. Acts involving moral turpitude. 3. Breach of ASEB officers (Conduct) Regulations, 1982. . 3. Along with the aforesaid chargesheet a detailed statement of all egations on which the charges were based as well as a list of documents and a li st of witnesses by which the charges were proposed to be established were furnis hed to the appellant. The appellant submitted his reply to the charges denying t he same. The reply of the appellant not having been accepted by the disciplinary authority, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry into the char ges levelled. In the enquiry proceedings eight witnesses were examined in suppor t of the charges whereas in addition to the appellant, one defence witness was a lso examined. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted an elaborate report date d 10.10.2008 to the effect that the charges levelled against the appellant are p roved. A copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report was furnished to the appellant ask ing him to show cause as to why the penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed. An opportunity of hearing in person was also afforded to the appell ant which was availed of on 23.10.2008. Thereafter, on consideration of the cont entions advanced at the personal hearing and also on due consideration of the wr itten representation submitted by the appellant against the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority by order dated 31.10.2008 thought it proper to impose the punishment of dismissal from service on the appellant which has since been modi fied by order dated 2.3.2009 to one of compulsory retirement. 4. From the proceedings before the disciplinary authority in which the appellant appeared in person as also from the contentions advanced before th e learned Single Judge, it appears that the grievance of the appellant with rega rd to the conduct of the proceedings held against him and the punishment imposed were two fold. The first pertained to non-examination of all the twenty eight w itnesses cited in support of the charges and the second was with regard to denia l of a fair opportunity of cross-examination to the appellant. Both the aforesai d contentions were answered against the appellant by holding that it is not obli gatory for the Enquiry Officer to examine all such witnesses who may have been i nitially cited. In so far as the complaint with regard to the denial of the righ t to cross-examine is concerned, on perusal of the report of enquiry and other c onnected records, it has been held by the learned Single Judge that the said con tention is entirely unfounded, inasmuch as, from the records of the proceedings it appears that the appellant had cross-examined each of the witnesses examined in support of the charges. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant besides reiterating the af oresaid statements has also referred to a written argument which has been placed before the Court highlighting certain other points. 6. We have read and considered the said written argument. On such c onsideration we find that the points urged therein pertain to the issue of falsi ty of the case brought against the appellant by the charge memo and also the acc eptability of the evidence tendered by the witnesses in the disciplinary proceed ing by incorrect appreciation thereof. 7. Time and again, it has been emphasized that the writ Court would not convert itself to a Court of appeal to examine issues of fact by appreciati on or re-appreciation of the evidence on record. The primary duty of the writ Co urt would be to examine the validity of a disciplinary proceeding and the punish ment imposed therein from the standpoint of grant of a fair opportunity to the c harged official to defend himself and also as to whether the conclusions arrived at are not opposed to the weight of the evidence and the materials on record i. e. are not perverse. 8. A consideration of the records of the proceedings would indicate that at every stage of the proceedings the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charges levelled. Not only he had participated in the enquiry proceedings and had cross-examined the witnesses, e vidence was also led on his behalf which was also duly considered by the Enquiry Officer. The conclusions of the Enquiry Officer are based on a due and proper c onsideration of the evidence and the materials adduced in the course of the enqu iry. After the enquiry report was submitted all opportunities were afforded to t he appellant and he was also heard personally. The objections raised by the appe llant in the course of personal hearing were duly considered by the disciplinary authority who has passed an elaborate speaking order dated 31.10.2008 holding t he charges levelled against the appellant to be proved. Therefore, according to us, the present is not a case which would be amenable to any correction in exerc ise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. The above apart, our consideration of the evidence on record rev eals that the respondent No.2 who was examined as M.W.2 had given a vivid descri ption of the harassment meted out to her by the appellant. M.W.1 and 3 who were the members of the Committee appointed by the Chairman of the Board had proved t he report of the Committee whereas M.W.4,5,6,7 and 8 are co-workers who in their depositions had unfolded the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the appellant t owards the respondent No.2. On the basis of the said evidence, the findings reco rded by the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority, in our considered vi ew, are perfectly justified and no interference with the said findings or the ev entual punishment imposed i.e. compulsory retirement will be called for. 10. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed and the order dated 6.6.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge is af firmed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.