Virendra Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
1 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
THE IN HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3383 of 2016
CNR No.: MPHC030119652016
VIRENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Goswami - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati – Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):-
“7.1 That the impugned order Annexure P-2 dated 20.07.2015,
Annexure P-3 dated 29.08.2015 as well as impugned order
Annexure P-4 dated 21.03.2016 passed by the relevant respondent
authority may kindly be set – aside
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
2 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
7.2 That, the respondent further may kindly be directed to provide
all consequential benefits to the petitioner which is flouted away
by passing the impugned order Annexure P-2 to P-4.
7.3 That any other relief doing justice into the matter may kindly
be awarded to the petitioner including cost of petitioner advocate
fee etc.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
working in the respondent department for the last 21 years and has been
performing his duties sincerely. It is further submitted that while working as a
Junior Data Entry Operator in the Tehsil Office, Lateri, the petitioner was served
with a charge-sheet (Annexure P/1). Three charges were levelled against him.
The first charge related to changing the recorded area of Survey No.256 of
Village Jaura Khedi, Tehsil Lateri, from 1.869 hectares to 0.657 hectares. The
second charge related to misbehaviour with the advocates of the Bar Association,
Lateri. The third charge was that he failed to complete the assigned work within
the prescribed time. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the
petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet but it was not properly
considered. No show-cause notice was issued before the charge-sheet and a
departmental inquiry was conducted under Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It is further submitted that
statements of the SDO, Lateri, the Tehsildar, Lateri, the complainant Abdul Gani
Khan, the Secretary of the Bar Association, Lateri and the Director of the Lok
Seva Kendra, Lateri, were recorded during the inquiry. However, the petitioner
was not given a proper opportunity to present his defence. It is further submitted
that out of the three charges, two were found proved and the petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
3 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
punished with withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect. His
salary was also withheld on the ground of "no work, no pay". It is further
submitted that the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary as well as appellate
authorities failed to properly consider the cross-examination of the prosecution
witnesses and the evidence of the defence witnesses. It is further submitted that
the complainant's statement regarding the alleged demand of ₹10,000 was not
properly appreciated and submitted that the defence of petitioner regarding the
charge of misbehaviour was also ignored. Learned counsel submits that the
penalty of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect and
treating the suspension period as no work, no pay is excessive and
disproportionate. It is further submitted that the impugned orders (Annexures P/2
to P/4) are illegal and contrary to the record. Therefore, the petitioner has filed
the present petition challenging the same.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the present petition
has been filed by the petitioner challenging the departmental inquiry report dated
20.07.2015, the punishment order dated 29.8.2015 passed by the disciplinary
authority and the order dated passed by the appellate authority. It is submitted
that while working as a Junior Data Entry Operator in the Tehsil Office, Lateri,
the petitioner was found to have allegedly changed the recorded area of Survey
No.256 of Village Joravar Khedi from 1.869 hectares to 0.657 hectares. The
respondents state that the said entry was changed nine times between 06.07.2013
and 23.09.2013 through the petitioner's password. Learned counsel further
submits that a complaint was also received from the Bar Association, Lateri,
regarding the petitioner's alleged misbehaviour and working style. On the basis
of the complaints and the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
4 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
placed under suspension on 21.10.2013 and a charge-sheet was issued to him on
04.12.2013. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted his reply to the
charge-sheet on 10.12.2013. As the reply was not found satisfactory, an Inquiry
Officer and a Presenting Officer were appointed vide order dated 23.01.2014 to
conduct the departmental inquiry in accordance with Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Learned counsel for
the respondents submits that the departmental inquiry was conducted in
accordance with the prescribed procedure. The petitioner was given an
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce evidence in his
defence. The Inquiry Officer, after considering the evidence available on record,
found Charges No.1 and 2 proved against the petitioner, whereas Charge No.3
was found not proved. It is further submitted that the inquiry report was
forwarded to the petitioner, who submitted his representation on 04.08.2015.
After considering the inquiry report and the representation of petitioner, the
disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding four annual increments
with cumulative effect. The suspension period was also ordered to be treated as a
period for which the petitioner would not be entitled to salary, though the period
would be counted for pension purposes. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, which was rejected by the appellate
authority vide order dated 21.03.2016 after considering the grounds raised by
him. It is contended that the petitioner was given a proper opportunity to defend
himself. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice or the
applicable rules. The punishment was imposed after considering the charges
proved against him and is proportionate to the misconduct. It is further
submitted that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
5 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
limited jurisdiction to interfere in matters relating to punishment and this Court
cannot decide the case as an appellate authority.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The charges leveled against the petitioner are quoted below for ready
reference and convenience:
fuyafcr twfu;j MkVk ,UVªh v‚ijsVj Jh ohjsUæ JhokLro rglhy dk;kZy; yVsjh ds
fo:) e/; çns'k flfoy lsok oxhZdj.k fu;=.k ,oa vihy fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 14&3
ds vuqlj.k esa fuEu vkjksi vf/kjksfiZr fd;s tkrs gS &
vkjksi Øekad &1
;g fd vkids }kjk rglhy yVsjh ds xzke tksjkoj[ksMh ds losZ uacj 256 jdck 1-869 gså
ds LFkku ij dEI;wVj fjdkMZ esa gsjkQsjh dj jdck 0-657 gså dh çfof"V dh xbZ gSA ;g
—R; Hkw&vfHkys[k lafgrk ds foifjr gksrh xaHkhj dnkpj.k dk —R; gSA bl çdkj vkidk
I II III
—R; eåçå flfoy lsok dnkpj.k fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 3 ds mifu;e ds
mYya?ku djus dk nks"kh cuk fy;k x;k gSA
vkjksi Øekad &2
vfHkHkk"kd la?k yVsjh ds }kjk çLrko Øekad 6@13 fnukad 13-05-13 esa vkidh
dk;Z'kSyh ,oa O;ogkj i{kdkjksa o vfHkHkk"kdx.k ds çfr v'kksHkuh; o vHkærk fd;s tkus
ckcr~ ikfjr fd;k x;k gS tks e/; çns'k flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 3
rFkk 3 ¼d½ dk nks"kh cuk fy;k x;k gSA
vkjksi Øekad &3
lapkyd yksd lsok dsUæ iou lkgw ds }kjk Hkh vkids }kjk lsok;sa le; lhek dh vafre
frfFk rd ¼lk;a 5-00 cts rd fMLiksty½ ugha fd;s tkrs gSA mä —R; eåçå flfoy
lsok vkpj.k fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 3 ds nks"kh cukrk gSA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
6 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
6. Perusal of the record shows that the present petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging the departmental inquiry report dated 20.07.2015, the
punishment order and the order passed by the appellate authority. While working
as a Junior Data Entry Operator in the Tehsil Office, Lateri, the petitioner was
alleged to have changed the recorded area of Survey No.256 of Village Joravar
Khedi from 1.869 hectares to 0.657 hectares. According to the respondents, the
entry was changed nine times between 06.07.2013 and 23.09.2013 using the
petitioner's password. A complaint was also received from the Bar Association,
Lateri, alleging that the petitioner misbehaved and did not work properly. On the
basis of these complaints and the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the
petitioner was suspended on 21.10.2013 and a charge-sheet was issued to him on
04.12.2013. The petitioner submitted his reply on 10.12.2013. As the reply was
not found satisfactory, an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer were
appointed vide order dated 23.01.2014 to conduct the inquiry under Rule 14 of
the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. During
the inquiry, the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses and present evidence in his defence. After considering the evidence,
the Inquiry Officer found Charges No.1 and 2 proved against the petitioner, while
Charge No.3 was found not proved. The inquiry report was sent to the petitioner,
who submitted his representation on 04.08.2015. After considering the inquiry
report and the representation of petitioner, the disciplinary authority imposed the
penalty of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect. It was also
ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled to salary for the suspension
period, although the period would be counted for pension purposes. The
petitioner preferred a departmental appeal, which was rejected by the appellate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
7 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
authority vide order dated 21.03.2016 after considering the grounds raised by
him. The respondents contend that the petitioner was given a proper opportunity
to defend himself and that there was no violation of the applicable rules or the
principles of natural justice. The punishment was imposed after considering the
charges proved against the petitioner and is proportionate to the misconduct. This
Court has limited powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such
matters and cannot act as an appellate authority to re-examine the entire
departmental inquiry.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and another Vs. N.
Gangraj reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 has held as under:
“ 8. We find that the interference in the order of punishment by the
Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from patent error. The
power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process.
The power of judicial review conferred on the constitutional court or
on the Tribunal is not that of an appellate authority.
9. In State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 , a three-
Judge Bench of this Court has held that the High Court is not a court
of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental
enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine
whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf,
and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and
whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. The Court held
as under : (AIR pp. 1726-27, para 7)
“7. … The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding
under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over
the decision of the authorities holding a departmental
enquiry against a public servant : it is concerned to
determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural
justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
8 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the
enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably
support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of
the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a
petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence
and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.”
10. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996
SCC (L&S) 80] , again a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held
that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of
judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair
treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority
reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the court. The
court/tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an
appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its
own independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under :
(SCC pp. 759-60, paras 12-13)
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision
but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that
the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily
correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is
conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant,
the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the
inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules
of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings
or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction,
power and authority to reach a finding of fact or
conclusion. But that finding must be based on some
evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act
nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply
to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts
that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom,
the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the
delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
9 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not
act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and
to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence.
The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority
held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a
manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in
violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of
inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the
disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the
conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person
would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may
interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould
the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each
case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-
extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the
nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict
proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are
not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of
evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the
Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4
SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 , this Court held at p. 728
that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence
reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or
suffers from patent error on the face of the record or
based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be
issued.”
11. In High Court of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1 SCC
416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144 , this Court held that interference with the
decision of departmental authorities is permitted if such authority
had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice
or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such
enquiry while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. It was held as under : (SCC p. 423, para 16)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
10 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
“16. The Division Bench [Shashikant S. Patil v. High
Court of Bombay, 1998 SCC OnLine Bom 97 : (2000) 1
LLN 160] of the High Court seems to have approached
the case as though it was an appeal against the order of
the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High
Court. Interference with the decision of departmental
authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority
had held proceedings in violation of the principles of
natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations
prescribing the mode of such enquiry or if the decision of
the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to
the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion
made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly
arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could
have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar
to the above. But we cannot overlook that the
departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary
Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the
facts, if the enquiry has been properly conducted. The
settled legal position is that if there is some legal
evidence on which the findings can be based, then
adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a
matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
12. In State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya,
(2011) 4 SCC 584:(2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 721 , this Court held that the
courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led
in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another
view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been
fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the
question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the
evidence will not be ground for interfering with the findings in
departmental enquiries. The Court held as under:(SCC pp. 587-88,
paras 7 & 10)
“7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as
an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
11 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that
another view is possible on the material on record. If the
enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the
findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy
of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will
not be grounds for interfering with the findings in
departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not
interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental
enquiries, except where such findings are based on no
evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to
find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting
reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or
finding, on the material on record. The courts will
however interfere with the findings in disciplinary
matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory
regulations have been violated or if the order is found to
be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous
considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India,
(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80, Union of India
v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S)
1806 and Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana,
(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036, High Court
of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil, (2000) 1 SCC 416 :
2000 SCC (L&S) 144].)
*
10. The fact that the criminal court subsequently
acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of
doubt, will not in any way render a completed
disciplinary proceeding invalid nor affect the validity of
the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The
standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being
different from the standard of proof required in
departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence
may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that
is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an
acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal
proceedings. This is more so when the departmental
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
12 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
proceedings are more proximate to the incident, in point
of time, when compared to the criminal proceedings. The
findings by the criminal court will have no effect on
previously concluded domestic enquiry. An employee
who allows the findings in the enquiry and the
punishment by the disciplinary authority to attain finality
by nonchallenge, cannot after several years, challenge the
decision on the ground that subsequently, the criminal
court has acquitted him.”
13. In another judgment reported as Union of India v. P.
Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 554 , this
Court held that while reappreciating evidence the High Court cannot
act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The
Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not
interfere in the disciplinary proceedings : (SCC p. 617, para 13)
“13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case
the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear
to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience.”
14. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent relies
upon the judgment reported as Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan
Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 : (2017) 1 SCC (L&S) 335 , wherein this
Court held that if the disciplinary authority records a finding that is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
13 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
not supported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which is
unreasonably arrived at, the writ court could interfere with the
finding of the disciplinary proceedings. We do not find that even on
touchstone of that test, the Tribunal or the High Court could interfere
with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority It is not the
case of no evidence or that the findings are perverse. The finding
that the respondent is guilty of misconduct has been interfered with
only on the ground that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the
Department. The discrepancies in the evidence will not make it a
case of no evidence. The inquiry officer has appreciated the evidence
and returned a finding that the respondent is guilty of misconduct.
15. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry
officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal before the
State Government was also dismissed. Once the evidence has been
accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of
judicial review, the Tribunal or the High Court could not interfere
with the findings of facts recorded by reappreciating evidence as if
the courts are the appellate authority. We may notice that the said
judgment has not noticed the larger Bench judgments in State of A.P.
v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 and B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 as
mentioned above. Therefore, the orders passed by the Tribunal and
the High Court suffer from patent illegality and thus cannot be
sustained in law.”
8. The Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs.
Ramesh Dinkar Punde reported in (2006) 7 SCC 212 has held a under:
“6. Before we proceed further, we may observe at this stage that it is
unfortunate that the High Court has acted as an Appellate Authority
despite the consistent view taken by this Court that the High Court
and the Tribunal while exercising the judicial review do not act as an
Appellate Authority:
“Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct
errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in
manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
14 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication
on merit by reappreciating the evidence as an Appellate
Authority.” (See Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan
[(2006) 2 SCC 373 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 316], SCC p. 379,
para 11.)
9. It is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence
which had been considered by the inquiry officer, a disciplinary
authority and the Appellate Authority. The finding of the High Court,
on facts, runs to the teeth of the evidence on record.
12. From the facts collected and the report submitted by the inquiry
officer, which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and
the Appellate Authority.
15. In Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur [(1972) 4 SCC 618 : (1972)
2 SCR 218] it is held as under: (SCC p. 623, para 15)
A disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial. The
standard proof required is that of preponderance of
probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the
inference that lender was a person likely to have official
dealings with the respondent was one which a reasonable
person would draw from the proved facts of the case, the
High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal over a decision
based on it. The Letters Patent Bench had the same power
of dealing with all questions, either of fact or of law
arising in the appeal, as the Single Judge of the High
Court. If the enquiry has been properly held the question
of adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be
canvassed before the High Court. A finding cannot be
characterised as perverse or unsupported by any relevant
materials, if it was a reasonable inference from proved
facts. (SCR p. 219)
16. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda [(1989) 2 SCC 177 : 1989
SCC (L&S) 303 : (1989) 10 ATC 30] it is held at SCC p. 189, para
27 as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
15 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
“27. We must unequivocally state that the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters
or punishment cannot be equated with an appellate
jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot interfere with the
findings of the inquiry officer or competent authority
where they are not arbitrary or utterly perverse. It is
appropriate to remember that the power to impose
penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the
competent authority either by an Act of legislature or
rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent with
the rules and in accordance with principles of natural
justice what punishment would meet the ends of justice is
a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be
imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, the
Tribunal has no power to substitute its own discretion for
that of the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it is
mala fide is certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to
concern itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere
with the penalty if the conclusion of the inquiry officer or
the competent authority is based on evidence even if
some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the
matter.”
17. In Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan [(1998) 4 SCC 310 :
1998 SCC (L&S) 1129] this Court held at SCC p. 315, para 12 as
under:
“12. After hearing the rival contentions, we are of the
firm view that all the four charge-sheets which were
enquired into relate to serious misconduct. The
respondent was unable to demonstrate before us how
prejudice was caused to him due to non-supply of the
enquiry authority's report/findings in the present case. It
needs to be emphasised that in the banking business
absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs
to be preserved by every bank employee and in particular
the bank officer. If this is not observed, the confidence of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
16 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
the public/depositors would be impaired. It is for this
reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court had
committed an error while setting aside the order of
dismissal of the respondent on the ground of prejudice on
account of non-furnishing of the enquiry report/findings
to him.”
18. In Chairman and MD, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar
[(2003) 4 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 468] this Court held at SCC
pp. 376-77, para 14 as under:
“14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of
honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and
the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take
all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge
his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and
to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct
and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every
officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari
Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1194] it is no defence
available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case,
when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very
discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent
upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within
their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a
breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the
employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects
do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court.”
19. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC v. Hoti Lal [(2003) 3 SCC
605 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 363] it was pointed out as under: (SCC p.
614, para 10)
“If the charged employee holds a position of trust where
honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of
functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter
leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with
iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
17 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary
capacity, the highest degree of integrity and
trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable.”
20. In Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam [(2005)
3 SCC 241 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 395] this Court at SCC p. 247 , para
15 held:
“15. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the
principles of the Evidence Act have no application in a
domestic enquiry.”
9. This Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
cannot act as an Appellate Authority and cannot substitute its own findings by
reversing the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate
Authority. This Court can interfere with the findings of fact, provided they are
based on no evidence.
10. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether the findings
recorded by disciplinary authority or appellate authority are based on no evidence
or not?
11. The power of judicial review is confined to the decision-making process.
The power of judicial review conferred upon the Constitutional Court is not that
of an appellate authority. It is concerned with determining whether the inquiry
was conducted by an authority competent in that behalf, in accordance with the
prescribed procedure and whether the principles of natural justice have been
complied with. The power of judicial review is not an appeal against a decision
but a review of the manner in which the decision has been made. It is meant to
ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the
conclusion reached by the authority is necessarily correct in the eyes of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
18 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
Court. Where the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the
authority entrusted with the power to hold the inquiry has the jurisdiction, power,
and authority to arrive at findings of fact or conclusions. However, such findings
must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of the Evidence Act
nor the strict rules regarding proof of facts or admissibility of evidence, as
defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceedings. While exercising the power of
judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate authority to reappreciate
the evidence and arrive at its own independent findings. The Court may interfere
with the conclusion or finding and mould the relief, where warranted, to make it
appropriate to the facts of the case. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of
facts. Where an appeal is provided, the appellate authority has co-extensive
powers to reappreciate the evidence and examine the nature or quantum of
punishment.
12. In a disciplinary inquiry, strict proof of legal evidence and findings based
thereon are not required. The departmental authority is the sole judge of the facts,
provided that the inquiry has been properly conducted. It is the settled legal
position that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based,
the adequacy or even the reliability of that evidence is not a matter to be
canvassed before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The finding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct cannot be
interfered with merely on the ground that there are discrepancies in the evidence
adduced by the Department. Such discrepancies do not render the case one of "no
evidence.
13. In the departmental enquiry, statement of Sunil Dabar, SDO Lateri has
been recorded. Relevant part thereof reads as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
19 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls lk{kh Øekad 02&rglhynkj yVsjh] Jh lquhy Mkcj us
fnukad 07-07-2014 esa dgk¡ gS fd eSa esjs }kjk fnukad 08-10-2013 dks vuqfoHkkxh;
vf/kdkjh egksn; yVsjh dks Jh ohjsUæ JhokLro dEI;wVj v‚ijsVj ds laca/k esa fy[kk
x;kA vkosnd vCnqy xuh [kk¡ firk 'ke'ksj[kkW fu- eqjokl ds uke Hkwfe xzke
tksjkoj[ksM+h esa losZ u- 256 jdok 1-896 gSå Hkwfe dk jDok de fd;s tkus dk vkosnu
fn;k Fkk mlesa dEI;wVj v‚ijsVj ohjsUæ JhokLro ds }kjk tku cw>dj vkosnd dh
Hkwfe dk jDok 0-657 gSå fd;k x;kA ftldh esjs }kjk tk¡p dh xbZA o"kZ 2000&01 ls
2004&05 esa [kljk dekad 256 dk jDok 1-800 gSå ntZ FkkA dEI;wVj v‚ijsVj ds }
kjk fcuk fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds fcuk bl jdos dks 0-657 gSå fd;k
x;kA Jh ohjsUæ JhokLro dEI;wVj v‚ijsVj ds fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh gsrq
vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh yVsjh dks i= fy[kk x;kA
In the departmental enquiry, statement of Abdul Gani has been recorded.
Relevant part thereof reads as under:-
"
vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls lk{kh Øekad 03 Jh vCnqyxuh [k‚ iq=
'ke'ksj[k‚ fuå eqjokl rglhy yVsjh }kjk fnukad 10-03-2014 dks vius dFku esa
crk;k fd Jh ohjsUæ JhokLro MkVk ,Uvªh v‚ijsVj rglhy yVsjh dks tkurk
gw¡A eSaus rglhy yVsjh ds tksjkoj[ksM+h xzke ds [kljk ua- 256 dh udy yh Fkh]
mlesa de ls de lk<s pkj&ik¡p ch?kk tehu de ik;h xbZ FkhA eSus ohjsUæ
JhokLor MkVk ,Uvªh v‚ijsVj ls jDok de gksus dh f'kdk;r dh FkhA Jh ohjsUæ
JhokLor us dgk fd iwjk ugha dj ikšxkA fQj esus ,l-Mh-,e-lkc ls f'kdk;r
dh ,l-Mh-,e- lkc us rglhynkj lkc ,oa iVokjh dks esjs lkeus cqyok;k
Fkk] ,l-Mh-,e- lkc us rglhynkj lkc dks jDok lgh djus dks dgk FkkA
rglhynkj lkc us esjk jdok lgh djok fn;k] ,l-Mh-,e-lkc us esjk iqjkuk
fjdkMZ eaxok;k FkkA Jh ohjsUæ JhokLro us jDok lgh djus ds fy,
10]000@&:å dh ekax dh FkhA "
In the departmental enquiry, statement of Shri Keshav Babu Shrivastav,
Secretary, Bar Association, Lateri has been recorded. Relevant part thereof reads
as under:-
vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls lk{kh Øekad 04 lfpo vfHkHkk"kd la?k yVsjh Jh
ds'ko ckcw JhokLro }kjk fnukad 29-03-2014 }kjk vius dFku esa crk;k fd eSa
ohjsUæ JhokLro dks O;fäxr:i ls 10&15 lky ls tkurk gw¡A Jh ohjsUæ dqekj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
20 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
JhokLro MkVk ,UVªh v‚ijsVj 1 o"kZ ls rglhy yVsjh esa inLFk FksA ohjsUæ
JhokLro vfHkHkk"kdx.k ls rFkk —"kdksa ls v'kksHkuh; o vHkærk iw.kZ O;ogkj jgk
gSA bl laca/k esa eSaus Lo;a us Hkh rFkk vfHkHkk"kdx.k ds vU; lnL;ksa us Hkh
rglhynkj egksn; yVsjh Jh eqUukyky tSu rFkk ,l-Mh-vks- egksn; Jh chM+h
f}osnh ls Hkh iwoZ esa f'kdk;r dh FkhA
eSa fiNys o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa mlds iwoZ o"kksaZ esa Hkh vfHkHkk"kd la?k yVsjh dk
lfpo jgk gw¡A rFkk orZeku esa Hkh lfpo gw¡A fiNys o"kZ fnukad 10-05-2013 dks
vfHkHkk"kd la?k ds lnL; Jh Mh-,l-xkSj ,MoksdsV ds }kjk vfHkHkk"kd la?k yVsjh
esa mä ohjsUæ JhokLro MkVk ,UVªh v‚ijsVj ds fo:) ,d fyf[kr f'kdk;r dh
Fkh ftll ij ls vfHkHkk"kd la?k yVsjh ds }kjk ,d vko';d cSBd fnukad 13-
05-2013 dks cqykbZ tkdj mä f'kdk;rh vkosnu ij fopkj dj çLrko Bgjko
dj tks fd çLrko Øekad&6@13-05-2013 gSA bl çLrko ds ek/;e ls Jh
ohjsUæ JhokLro ds fo:) çLrko ikfjr dj Jheku dysDVj egksn; fofn'kk dks
eSus fnukad 16-05-2013 dks ,d i= ds lkFk çLrko ds çfr layXu dj Hksth xbZ
FkhA rFkk eSus vfHkHkk"kd la?k dh vksj ls ekå dysDVj egksn; ls mä MkVk
,UVªh v‚ijsVj ohjsUæ JhokLro ds fo:) dk;Z'kSyh o v'kksHkuh; O;ogkj ls
vfHkHkk"kd la?k yVsjh us vlarks"k ls voxr djkdj mä v‚ijsVj ds fo:)
mfpr dk;Zokgh djus o mUgs rglhy dk;kZy; yVsjh ls vU;= Hksts tkus dk
fuosnu fd;k FkkA
mä vkiWjsVj ds }kjk muds yVsjh esa jgs dk;Zdky ds nkSjku lHkh vfHkHkk"kdx.k
o i{kdkjksa ls vHkærkiw.kZ O;ogkj gS eq>s Hkh mä ohjsUæ JhokLro v‚ijsVj ds }
kjk muds dEI;wVj v‚ijsVj d{k esa vius i{kdkj ds dke ls tkus ij esjs lkFk
v'kksHkuh; O;ogkj fd;k vkSj eq>ls dgk fd ;g esjk d{k gS] blesa eSa ftls pkgw¡
ogh O;fä d{k esa vUnj vk ldrk gSA eSa rqEgsa d{k ckgj fudky ldrk gw¡A eSus
rqjUr mlh le; rglhynkj Jh ,eå,yå tSu ls esjs lkFk gq, v'kksHkuh;
O;ogkj ls voxr djk;k rks mä dEI;wVj v‚ijsVj rglhynkj egksn; ds le{k
gh & eq>s >wBs çdj.k esa Qlkus o 353 vkbZihlh ds çdj.k esa Qlkus dh /kedh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
21 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
nsus yxsA vkSj eq>ls dgk Fkk fd esjh f'kdk;r djds rqe esjk dqN Hkh fcxkM
ugha ldrsA
eSa vius lkFk yk;k f'kdk;rh vkosnu fnukad 10-05-2013 dh çfr ftl ij ls
ikfjr fd;k x;k çLrko dekad 6@13-05-2013 dh çfr rFkk dysDVj egksn;
fofn'kk dks Hksts x;s i= fnukad 16-05-2013 dh çfr iqu% fnukad 06-07-2013 dks
Jheku dysDVj egksn; dks Hksts x;s i= dh çfr çLrqr dj jgk gw¡A
vr% mä MkVk ,Uvªh v‚ijsVj ohjsUæ JhokLro ds fo:) mfpr dk;Zokgh djus
dk d"V djsaA
14. The Inquiry Officer has appreciated the evidence and returned a finding
that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. The relevant portion of inquiry report
dated 20.7.2015 is quoted below for ready reference and convinience:
foospuk%&
çdj.k esa vipkjh deZpkjh ds fo#) çLrqr vkjksi ,oa muds }kjk çLrqr tokc]
vfHkys[k] ekSf[kd lk{; lwph 1 vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh yVSjh 2- rglhynkj yVsjh
3 f'kdk;rdrkZ vCnqy xuh dk fuoklh eqjokr 4- vfHkHkk"kd la?k yVSjh 5
lapkyd yksd lsok dsaæ yVsjh Jh iou lkgw }kjk fn;s x;s dFku ,oa çfr
ijh{k.k] vipkjh deZpkjh d lk{; ,ao çfrijh{k.k] çLrqrdrkZ dh czhQ ,oa
vipkjh deZpkjh }kjk çLrqr czhQ dk tokc dk voyksdu ijh{k.k ,oa ifj'khyu
fd;k x;kA iw.kZ tkap mijkar ;g rF; lkeus vk;k fd vipkjh deZpkjh Jh
ohjsUnz JhokLro twfu;j MkVk ,aVªh v‚ijsVj ij yxk;k x;k vkjksi Øekad 1 esa
buds }kjk rglhy yVsjh esa inLFkkiuk ds nkSjku vius ikloMZ ls xzke
tksjkoj[ksMh ds [kkrk/kkjd Jh vCnqy xuh [kka iq= 'ke'ksj [kka fuoklh eqjokr ds
Hkwfe losZ Øekad 256 jDok 1-896 gsDVs;j ds LFkku ij 0-657 gS- dh çfo"fV fcuk
fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ls dh xbZ gSA ;g Hkh çekf.kr gksrk gS fd
vipkjh deZpkjh }kjk vius ikloMZ ls mä losZ u- dks fnukad 6-7-2013 ls 23-
9-2013 dh vof/k esa ukS ckj lalksf/kr fd;k x;k gSA bl rjg [kljk fjiksVZ esa
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
22 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
dh xbZ gsjkQsjh çn'kZ ih&1 esa dEI;wVj l‚¶Vos;j dh fjiksVZ ls çekf.kr gksrh
gSA rglhynkj ,oa vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh yVsjh }kjk çkIr tkap esa] f'kdk;r
lgh ikbZ xbZA bl vk/kkj ij vkjksi Øekad &1 fjdkMZ gsjkQsjh lgh fl)
gksrk gSA
vkjksi Øekad& 2 esa vfHkHkk"kd la?k yVsjh }kjk Jh JhokLro ds vkpj.k ,oa
O;ogkj ls O;rhr gksdj buds fo#) budh dk;Z'kSyh rFkk v'kksHkuh; O;ogkj ds
dkj.k çLrko ikfjr dj fnukad 13-05-13 dks fn;k x;k mä vkjksi dh iqf"V
vfHkHkk"kd la?k ds lfpo ds dFku ls gksrh gSaA çfrijh{k.k ds nkSjku Jh
JhokLro dFku dks xyr fl) djus esa vlQy gks x;kA rFkk muds }kjk fn;k
x;k tcko Hkh larks"kçn ugha gS vr% vkjksi Øekad&2 Hkh izekf.kr gksrk gSA
vkjksi Øekad&3 ds laca/k esa yksdlsok dsaæ yVsjh dks çnk; dh tkus ckyh lsok;s
lgh le; ij ugha igqap ikrh FkhA ftlls vkosnd ijs'kku gksrs FksA lapkyd
yksdlsok dsaæ }kjk fn;s x;s dFku ls bl ckr dh iqf"V gksrh gSA vipkjh
deZpkjh }kjk fn;s x;s tcko esa muds }kjk udy lgh le; ij Hksth tkrh FkhA
yksdlsok dsaæ }kjk lgh le; ij udy çnk; ugha dh tkrh FkhA vr% Bksl
izek.k u gksus ls vkjksi Øekad&3 fl) ugha gksrk gSA
15. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 29.8.2015 passed by the
Collector is quoted below for ready reference and convenience:
çdj.k esa ftyk foHkkxh; tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk laiw.kZ
foLr`r tkap mijkar fnukad 20-07-2015 dks tk¡p
çfrosnu çLrqr fd;k ftldk ifj'khyu fd;s tkus ij
ik;k x;k fd vipkjh deZpkjh Jh ohjsUæ dqekj
JhokLro ds fo#) vf/kjksfir vkjksi ,oa muds }kjk
çLrqr tokc] vfHkys[k] ekSf[kd lk{; lwph esa ntZ
vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ysVsjh] rglhynkj] yVsjh]
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
23 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
f'kdk;rdrkZ Jh vCnqy xuh [kka dks eqjokl] vfHkHkk"kd
la?k yVsjh ,oa Jh iou lkgw lapkyd yksd lsok dsUæ
yVsjh }kjk fn;s vius&vius dFkuksa dk çfrijh{k.k]
vipkjh deZpkjh ds lk{; tokc vkfn dk ijh{k.k djus
ij Jh JhokLro }kjk rglhy yVsjh esa inLFkkiuk ds
nkSjku vius ikloMZ ls xzke tks[kj[ksM+h ds [kkrk/kkjd
Jh vCnqy [k‚ iq= Jh 'ke'ksj [k‚ fuoklh eqjokl ds
Hkwfe losZ Ø- 256 jdck 1-895 gså ds LFkku ij 0-657
gs0 dh çfof"V fcuk fdlh l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ls
dh xbZ ;g Hkh çekf.kr gksrk gS fd vipkjh deZpkjh }
kjk vius ikloMZ ls mä losZ uaå dks fnukad 06-07-
2013 ls 23-09-2013 dh vof/k esa ukS ckj la'kksf/kr fd;k
x;k bl rjg [kljk fjiksVZ esa dh xbZ gsjkQsjh dEI;wVj
l‚QVos;j dh fjiksVZ esa çekf.kr gksus ls vkjksi Ø- 01
iw.kZr;k fl) ik;k tkrk gSA
vkjksi Ø- nks ds rgr vfHkHkk"kd la?k yVsjh }kjk
JhokLro ds vkpj.k ,oa O;ogkj ls nqf[kr & gksdj
budh dk;Z'kSyh rFkk v'kksHkuh; O;ogkj ds dkj.k
çLrko ikfjr dj fnukad 13-05-2013 dks fyf[kr esa
fn;k x;k mä vkjksi dh iqf"V vfHkHkk"kd la?k ds lfpo
ds dFku ls Hkh gksrh gSA bl çdkj vkjksi Ø- 02 Hkh
iw.kZr;k fl) ik;k tkrk gSA vkjksi Ø- 03 ds laca/k esa
Bksl çek.k çkIr ugha gq;s gSA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
24 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
vr% eS ,e-ch-vks>k] vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkjh ,oa ftyk
n.Mkf/kdkjh fofn'kk Jh ohjsUæ dqekj JhokLro] twfu;j MkVk
,aVªh v‚ijsVj yVsjh orZeku dk;kZy; jk"Vªh; lwpuk foKku dsUæ
fofn'kk ds fo:) vf/kjksfir vkjksi Ø- 01] 02 ,oa 03 esa ls
vkjksi Ø- 01 ,oa 02 iw.kZr;k fl) ik;s tkus ds QyLo:i e-ç-
flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k fu;e rFkk vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e
10¼4½ ds rgr Jh ohjsUæ dqekj JhokLro] twfu;j MkVk ,aVªh
v‚ijsVj dh pkj okf"kZd osru o`f);ka lap;h çHkko ls jksds tkus
dh 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djrk gw¡A lkFk gh Jh JhokLro dh
NO WORK NO PAY
fuyacu vof/k ¼dk;Z ugha osru ughaA ½ ds
fl)kar ij fujk—r fd;k tkrk gSA mä fuyacu vof/k dsoy
isa'ku ç;kstu gsrq x.kuk ds fy;s ekU; dh tkosxhA ”
16. Once the findings have been accepted by the disciplinary authority, the
High Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot interfere with
the findings of fact by reappreciating the evidence as if it were exercising
appellate jurisdiction. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on the merits by
reappreciating the evidence as an appellate authority. It is appropriate to
remember that the power to impose a penalty upon a delinquent employee is
conferred upon the competent authority either under an Act of the Legislature or
the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The
adequacy of the penalty, unless it is shown to be mala fide or shockingly
disproportionate, is not a matter with which the Court is ordinarily concerned.
The Court also cannot interfere with the penalty where the conclusion of the
Inquiry Officer or the competent authority is based on evidence, even if some
part of the evidence is found to be irrelevant or extraneous to the matter. Acting
beyond one's authority is, by itself, a breach of discipline and constitutes
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:33052
25 WP. No. 3383 of 2016
misconduct. The charges against the petitioner are not casual in nature but are
serious. Where a person deals with public money, is engaged in financial
transactions, or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and
trustworthiness is expected and is indispensable.
17. Considering the aforesaid, no case is made out warranting interference.
Petition being sans substratum is hereby dismissed .
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 10/31/2026
2:10:19 PM