IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 673 of 2001 Reserved on.: 3.7.2008 Date of decision:23.7.2008 Roop Singh Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents.: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned State Administrative Tribunal dated 1st May, 2000 in O.A. No. 748 of 1990 whereby the original application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the year 1984 the petitioner was working as Head Constable with the respondent and was posted at AIR Guard Room Baldehan falling under Police Station Dhalli. A chargesheet was issued against him to the effect that 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 on September 2, 1984 he came to Police Station Dhalli where he was handed over Rs.6,358.40 paise, which was the amount of pay payable to the employees of the Guard at Baldehan including the petitioner. According to the department after taking the money the petitioner left the police station but never reached Baldehan and misappropriated the entire amount. The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the amount paid to the petitioner was not Rs.6,358.40 paise but only Rs.6220.80 paise. He further held that this amount had not been paid by the petitioner to the police officials in the Guard at Baldehan. On the basis of the inquiry report show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He replied to the show cause notice. His explanation was not accepted and he was dismissed from service. Appeal was filed by the petitioner, which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Thereafter, revision petition was also filed, which was also rejected on 26.10.1989 by the Director General of Police. The petitioner filed O.A., which has also been rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. We have heard Shri Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the State. 3 The main ground raised by Shri Shrawan Dogra is that the Inquiry Report is based on no evidence and that the findings are perverse. He submits that whereas the charge was for embezzlement for Rs.6,358.40 paise the Inquiry Officer has found that only Rs.6222.80 paise has been misappropriated. According to him, this belies the statements of the prosecution witnesses who have stated that in their presence the petitioner was handed over Rs.6,358.40 paise. Shri Dogra has also relied upon the fact that the petitioner stands acquitted in a criminal case arising out of the same instance. It is also contended that the Inquiry Officer has himself come to the conclusion that in Report No.12 the signatures of the petitioner have been forged. He, therefore, urges that this is a case where the findings are perverse and liable to be set-aside. At the outset, we may point out that the jurisdiction of this Court in such matters is very limited. This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the orders of the disciplinary authorities. Further more, in a case like the present where the order of the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the learned Tribunal, this Court would be highly reluctant to interfere in the same. From the material on record, it stands proved that the petitioner had left Baldehan to collect the salary of all the 4 employees. According to the petitioner, the officials at Police Station Dhalli were asking him to sign receipt of full amount but giving him a lesser amount after making deduction from the salary of other employees. He, therefore, did not accept the pay of the other employees and only agreed to receive his own pay. An argument took place between him and the officer-in-charge at Police Station Dhalli and due to this, false charges were leveled against him. It is also not disputed that on 2.9.1984 after the incident took place the petitioner never went back to Baldehan. According to the petitioner, he received a message that his child was seriously ill and therefore, went home. He thereafter brought his child to Shimla on 3.9.1984 for treatment and went back to Baldehan on 4.9.1984. It is true that the Inquiry Officer has himself come to the conclusion that the signatures on Report No.12 alleged to be those of the petitioner are not his. However, this was not the only circumstance relied upon by the Inquiry Officer. Number of witnesses were examined by the Inquiry Officer. We have, alongwith Shri Shrawan Dogra gone through the entire record. We find that there is sufficient material on record to support the findings of the Inquiry Officer. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the report of the Inquiry 5 Officer is perverse or that it is based on no evidence whatsoever. A number of witnesses have clearly deposed that the salary amount of the other employees of the Guard were handed over to the petitioner. The entry in the register of the Guard at Baldehan dated 2.9.1984 also clearly indicates that the petitioner had gone to Dhalli to collect the salary of all the employees. This was admittedly the past practice also. The petitioner during the course of the inquiry took the plea that he had only gone to collect his own salary. This is a total lie and it stands proved from the record that the petitioner had gone to Dhalli to collect the salary of all the officials of the Guard at Baldehan. The acquaintance roll prepared at Dhalli also shows that a supplementary acquaintance roll for the remaining officials of the Guard was prepared. This belies the version of Roop Singh that he had only come to collect his salary. It would be pertinent to mention that there is no explanation worth the name as to why the petitioner went missing on 2.9.1984 itself and did not report for duty even as per is own version till 4.9.1984. The mere fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in criminal proceedings is no ground to set-aside the report of the Inquiry Officer, which is based on the material and evidence led before the Inquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings. 6 Keeping in view all the aforesaid facts, the conclusion arrived by the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to be incorrect. Therefore, we find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. 23rd July, 2008 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™