Jharkhand High Court
Union Of India Represented Through ... vs Manoj Kumar on 24 April, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.201 of 2023
------
1. Union of India represented through Commandant/Administration,
CISF, BSL unit, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, P.O.+P.S.-Bokaro Steel
City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand
2. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, having its
office at CISF Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Lodhi Road, District-New
Delhi.
3. Inspector General, CISF, East Zone Headquarter-Patna, PO and
PS Kotwali, District-Patna
4. Deputy Inspector General, CISF BSL Unit, Bokaro Steel City,
Bokaro, P.O. + P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand
Appellant no.2 to 4 are duly represented through the Appellant
No.1(Commandant/Administration, CISF, BSL unit, Bokaro Steel
City, Bokaro, P.O.+P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro,
Jharkhand) .... .... Appellants/Respondents
Versus
Manoj Kumar, Son of Late Tarini Singh, resident of village-Itahari,
PO-Itahari, PS-Naya Ramnagar, District-Munger, A/P Constable
No.921470076, Sector-11C, Q/No.4089, PO-Harla, PS-Sector 11,
District Bokaro .... .... Respondent/Petitioner
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advoate
------
07/Dated: 24.04.2024
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. No.4213 of 2023
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 1 LPA No.201/2023 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 136 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Heard.
3. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.
4. Accordingly, I.A.No.4213 of 2023 is allowed and delay of 136 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.
L.P.A. No.201 of 2023
5. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3274 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has quashed and set aside the order passed by the original authority dated 06/08.06.2010, the appellant authority dated 29.10.2010 and the revisional authority dated 25.01.2011.
6. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:-
7. It is the case that when the writ petitioner was on duty along with one Constable Ayub Khan on 16.12.2009, an inspection was conducted and it was found that a sum of Rs.1920/- with a mobile having double SIMs in a plastic bag was found beneath a bolder for which a seizure list was prepared. On being asked, the writ petitioner 2 LPA No.201/2023 refused to put his signature on the said seizure list which is contrary to the standard operating procedure being a member of Armed Force. The writ petitioner has submitted his reply of the charge memo on 21.01.2010 stating that the charges against him was baseless and false.
8. The enquiry officer has conducted the inquiry and submitted report on 30.04.2010 and the same was forwarded to the writ petitioner vide office memo dated 07.05.2010.
9. The writ petitioner submitted his reply of inquiry report to the disciplinary authority on 13.05.2010. The disciplinary authority passed the final order on 6/08.06.2010 imposing punishment of reduction of pay by one stage from Rs.8440+2400(BP+GP) to Rs.8110+2400 (BP+GP) in the present grade pay for one year with a further direction that during this period, the writ petitioner would not acquire any pay increment and after completion of punishment, reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increment of pay.
10. The writ petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General, CISF unit BSL, Bokaro dated 05.07.2010. The appellate authority has rejected the appeal having devoid of merit on 29.10.2010. thereafter, the writ petitioner preferred revision before the Inspector General, CISF, East Sector, Headquarter at Patna and the same was rejected vide order dated 25.01.2011.
11. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the writ petitioner has preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) NO.3274 of 2011. The said writ 3 LPA No.201/2023 petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.08.2022, hence, the present appeal.
12. It is evident from the factual aspect as narrated hereinabove that the respondent writ petitioner while working as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force having its unit at Bokaro Steel City was subject to departmental proceeding along with one another Constable Ayub Khan. Altogher two charges have been leveled against both of the delinquent employees.
13. As per the charge no.(i), it was alleged that the respondent writ petitioner while on duty with one Ayub Khan and from the place of their duty, an amount of Rs.1920/- and a mobile phone kept under a stone in a plastic bag was recovered. The said Ayub Khan, another Constable posted on duty has accepted that the said mobile phone belongs to him but he denied to own the recovered money. The charge, therefore, has been leveled against the respondent writ petitioner also that he since was on duty along with said Ayub Khan, hence, he was having full knowledge of commission of irregularity of acceptance of gratification.
14. So far charge no.(ii) is concerned as per which, the allegation has been leveled that at the time of search and seizure, the petitioner had refused to sign on the seizure list which reflected indiscipline on the part of the petitioner.
15. The writ petitioner had participated before the duly appointed inquiry officer and has defended himself by denying the allegation by taking the plea that there is no allegation said to be direct also what 4 LPA No.201/2023 to say about the direct evidence. But the inquiry officer has discarded the aforesaid defence and found the charge proved against the respondent/appellant along with said Ayub Khan.
16. The said inquiry report was forwarded before the disciplinary authority who on its acceptance has inflicted punishment of reduction to a lower time scale of pay from Rs.8440+2400 (BP+GP) to Rs.8110+2400 (BP+GP) for one year with a further direction that during this period, the petitioner would not acquire any pay increment and the reduction would affect the future increment of the petitioner.
17. The respondent writ petitioner has carried the said order of statutory appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CISF, BSL Unit but the appellate authority has declined to interfere with the order passed by the Commandant/Administration, Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 29.10.2010. The respondent writ petitioner, thereafter, has preferred revision by filing an application before the Inspector General, CISF, East Zone, Headquarter, Patna but the revisional authority has refused to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority vide order dated 25.01.2011.
18. The respondent writ petitioner in consequence of the rejection of the revision, has preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3274 of 2011. The respondents have been called upon.
19. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the principle of inflicting punishment in the departmental proceeding which although is to be passed on the basis of principle of preponderance of probability. But even in the case of preponderance 5 LPA No.201/2023 of probability, some material evidence is to be there to prove the charge and hence, the learned Single Judge has considered the order of punishment not based upon the direct or indirect evidence, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
20. Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants has taken the following grounds in filing the instant appeal:-
(i) There is no error in the order of punishment passed by the administrative disciplinary authority, since, the charge has been found to be proved by the inquiry officer but that aspect of the matter, has not been considered, rather, even though, the power of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very least for showing interference with the order passed by the disciplinary authority under the power of judicial review but even then, the impugned order of punishment, has been quashed and set aside. Hence, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, suffers from an error.
(ii) The ground has been taken that when the respondent writ petitioner was on duty along with Ayub Khan and the said Ayub Khan has already admitted the guilt of the money having been taken by way of gratification which he has accepted on the basis of the fact that from the place where the money was recovered, one mobile phone was also recovered.6 LPA No.201/2023
(iii) The case of the respondent writ petitioner is that he since was on duty along with said Ayub Khan and hence, his duty was to communicate about the misconduct of receiving the amount said to be by way of gratification before the higher competent authority, having not done so, the respondent writ petitioner has committed gross misconduct.
The disciplinary authority basing upon the said reason, has imposed punishment, which is even not said to be major one but without taking into consideration the nature of conduct of the respondent writ petitioner, the learned Single Judge has interfered with the impugned order.
The aforesaid ground of passing the order passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority, even though, has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
21. Learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is fit to be quashed and set aside
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
23. This Court needs to refer herein before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned, the principle which is to be 7 LPA No.201/2023 applied by way of power of judicial review in the matter of showing interference in the order passed by the administrative authority, is very least and it is to be exercised in certain condition or the reason, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SSC 610. At paragraphs 12 and 13 thereof, the following guidelines have been laid down for showing interference in the decision taken by the disciplinary authority and not to interfere with the decision, which reads as under:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. 1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;8 LPA No.201/2023
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate 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."
24. Further, in Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. vs. Abrar Ali [(2017) 4 SCC 507], following guidelines have been laid down by the Apex Court for interference by the High Court in the matter of punishment imposed on conclusion of the departmental 9 LPA No.201/2023 proceeding. The extract of relevant passages, i.e., para 13 and 14, are referred hereinbelow:
"13. Contrary to findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the High Court accepted the version of the Respondent that he fell ill and was being treated by a local doctor without assigning any reasons. It was held by the Disciplinary Authority that the Unit had better medical facilities which could have been availed by the Respondent if he was really suffering from illness. It was further held that the delinquent did not produce any evidence of treatment by a local doctor. The High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts which tantamounts to reappreciation of evidence. It is settled law that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
14. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya, [(2011) 4 SCC 584], this Court held as follows:
"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry 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, 10 LPA No.201/2023 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."
25. The law is also well settled that in the matter of departmental proceeding, the parameter of proving the charge is different to that of the charge which is to be proved in the criminal cases, since, in the criminal cases, the charge is to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
26. While on the other hand, in the departmental proceeding, even on the basis of preponderance of probability, the charge is to be proved. But, it is not that, only on the basis of preponderance of probability, the charge is to be proved, rather, even in order to come to the conclusion to prove the charge on the basis of the principle of preponderance of probability, some cogent evidence is to be there, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Anr. vs. Umesh, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 563, wherein, at paragraphs- 11 LPA No.201/2023 18 & 19 it has been held that mere on probabilities, no punishment can be imposed in the departmental proceeding. For ready reference, the same is being referred as under:-
"18. In the course of the submissions, the respondents placed reliance on the decision in Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129] . In that case, six charges were framed against the respondent. One of the charges was that he demanded a commission of 1% for paying the railway staff. The enquiry officer found all the six charges proved. The disciplinary authority agreed with those findings and imposed the punishment of reversion to a lower rank. Allowing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court observed that there was no evidence to hold that he was guilty of the charge of bribery since the witnesses only said that the motive/reason for not making the payment could be the expectation of a commission amount. The respondent placed reliance on the following passages from the decision : (SCC pp. 85 & 87, paras 21 & 31) "21. Such a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings both civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. He would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge of quasi-criminal nature was required to be proved beyond the shadow of doubt and to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere probabilities.
31. ... wherein it has been held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal from service. Therefore, the charge of corruption must always be dealt with keeping in mind that it has both civil and criminal consequences."
19. The observations in para 21 of Gyan Chand Chattar case [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129] are not the ratio decidendi of the case. These observations were made while discussing the judgment [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, 2002 SCC OnLine Guj 548] of the High Court. The ratio of the judgment emerges in the subsequent passages of the judgment, where the test of relevant material and compliance with natural justice as laid down in Rattan Singh [State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2 SCC 491 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 298 :
(1977) 1 SLR 750] was reiterated : (Gyan Chand Chattar case [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 129] , SCC p. 88, paras 35-36) "35. ... an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be 12 LPA No.201/2023 perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjectures and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct.
36. In fact, initiation of the enquiry against the respondent appears to be the outcome of anguish of superior officers as there had been an agitation by the railway staff demanding the payment of pay and allowances and they detained the train illegally and there has been too much hue and cry for several hours on the railway station. The enquiry officer has taken into consideration the non-
existing material and failed to consider the relevant material and finding of all facts recorded by him cannot be sustained in the eye of the law."
(emphasis supplied) On the charge of corruption, the Court observed in the above decision that there was no relevant material to sustain the conviction of the respondent since there was only hearsay evidence where the witnesses assumed that the motive for not paying the railway staff "could be"
corruption. Therefore, the standard that was applied by the Court for determining the validity of the departmental proceedings was whether (i) there was relevant material for arriving at the finding; and (ii) the principles of natural justice were complied with."
27. However, in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Uday Singh and others, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 129, the law has been laid down that in the departmental proceeding the cogent evidence is required to be there for inflicting punishment. For ready reference, paragraph-10 is being referred as under:
"-------- the doctrine of proof beyond doubt has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record would be necessary to reach a conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct-------."
28. This Court, is now proceeding to examine the charge which has been alleged against the respondent writ petitioner, for ready reference, the same is being referred hereinbelow:-
"आरोप काअनु े द-1 13 LPA No.201/2023 बल सं ा 921470076 आर क मनोज कुमार, केओसुव इकाई बीएसएल बोकारो को िदनां क 16-12-2009 को िदन पाली म समय 0500 बजे से 1700 बजे तक राईफल के साथ एनएसडी 10+ 12 कत थल पर आर क अयूब खान के साथ कत हे तु तैनात िकया गया था। उ तैनाती के दौरान ी राजकुमार, सहायक कमा े (अपराध व आसूचना भारी) एवं िनरी क/काय, एम० के० िस ा (अपराय व आसूवना) ारा संयं का औचक िनरी ण िकया गया िजसके दौरान समय लगभग 1655 बजे एनएसडी 10+12 कत थल का तलाशी िलया गया िजस पर उ कत थल से प र के नीचे ा क फी एक थैली िमली िजसकी जां च पड़ताल करने पर उसम पये 1920/- तथा िस ाटे ल उबल िसम का एक मोबाईल फोन बरामद ए। ा क की थैली से बरामद की गई पयों म 500/- का 02, ० 100/- का 09 एवं 0 20 का 01 नोट थे िजसके बारे म पूछे जाने पर आ क अयूब खान ने अनिभ ता कट िकया, परं तु मोबाईल फोन उसका है बताकर ीकार िकया िजससे यह सािबत होता है िक आर क अयूब खान ारा 0 1920/- अवै ध तरीके से वसूल कर रखा गया था। अतः अनुशािसत बल के सद होने के नाते आर क अयूब खान ारा िकया गया अवै ध काय को रोकना उसका फज बनता था, पर ु उसने न तो अवै ध काय करने से रोका और न ही इस संबंध म उ ािधका रयों को बताया। त ात् उ घटना की सूचना ी बी० आर० ढ़ाफा, सहायक कमा े ( े ीय भारी े -
02) को िदया गया तथा िनरी क/काय. एम० के० िस ा ारा त ंबंध म घटना की रपोट रोजनामचा सं ा 785 िदनां क 16-12-2009 को समय 1730 बजे पर दज की गई।
तदोपरा ् बरामद की गई पये 1920/- एवं मोचाईल फोन की ज ी सूिच िनरी क/काय एम० के० िस ा ारा तैयार की गई। इस कार आर क मनोज कुमार का उपरो कृ एक सश वल के सद होने के नाते उसके पदीय कत के 14 LPA No.201/2023 ित संिद आचरण, बौर दु राचार एवं िमलीभगत को दिशत करता है । अतः आरोप है ।
आरोप काअनु े द-2
बल सं ा 921470076 आर क मनोज कुमार, फेओसुब
इकाई बीएसएल बोकारो को िदनां क-16-12-2009 को िदन पाली म समय 0500 बजे से 1700 बजे तक राईफल के साथ एनएसडी 10 + 12 कत स्थल पर आर क अयूब खान के साथ कत हे तु तैनात िकया गया था। ी राजकुमार, सहायक कमा े (अपराध व आसूचना भारी) एवं िनरी क/काय.
एम० के० िस ा (अपराध व आसूचना) ारा समय लगभग
1655 बजे एनएसडी 10+12 फत थल का औचक
िनरी ण िकया गया, िनरी ण के दौरान उ कत थल से
प र के नीचे ा क की एक थैली िमली िजसकी जां च
पड़ताल करने पर उसम पये 1920/- तथा िस ाटे ल उबल
िसम का एम मोबाईल फोन बरामद ए िजसका ज ी सूिच
िनरी क/काय. एम० के० िस ा ारा तैयार की गई िजसम
आर क मनोज कुमार को अपना ह ा र करने के िलए कहा
गया पर ु उसने ज ी सूिच म अपना ह ा र करने से मना
िकया जोिक एक सश बल के सद की मयादा के
ितकूल तथा अपने से व र अिधकारी के ारा िदये गये
िविधवत आदे श का उ ं घन को दशाता है । अतः आरोप है ।"
29. It is evident from the memorandum of charge that primarily the allegation has been leveled against the said Ayub Khan who while discharging his duty on a particular post, a sum of Rs.1920/- was found under a stone which was at the distance of 1 meter. When the said Ayub Khan was interrogated then he refused showing ignorance about the said recovery of the amount and the mobile phone. But subsequently, the said Ayub Khan has accepted that the mobile phone which was found along with amount of Rs.1920/- under a 15 LPA No.201/2023 stone, belongs to him.
30. So far as the respondent writ petitioner is concerned, the allegation is that since he was on duty along with said Ayub Khan, hence, it was incumbent upon him to give due information to the higher authority about the misconduct of Ayub Khan but having not done so, a serious misconduct has been committed.
31. The charge no.(ii) is that while making search and seizure, the respondent writ petitioner has refused to sign on the seizure list.
32. We have gone through the inquiry report which is the part of the paper book.
33. We have found therefrom that specific material has been surfaced in course of inquiry before the inquiry officer so far as imputation of Ayub Khan is concerned.
34. The inquiry officer, on consideration of the fact that mobile phone was recovered from the place where Rs.1920/- was kept under a stone, hence, finding the fact that the culpability of the Ayub Khan is available in keeping the money of Rs.1920/-, which is contrary to the standard operating procedure, wherein, it has been provided that none of the employee, while doing duty inside the premise of the unit, is not to keep money in his pocket. In case, if the money is being kept, the disposal of the same is to be made.
35. It further appears from the inquiry report that the respondent writ petitioner has denied the allegation. But the inquiry officer has found the charge proved against the said Ayub Khan as also the respondent writ petitioner of conniving with the said Ayub Khan by 16 LPA No.201/2023 not giving due information to the higher authorities.
36. It has been settled as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even on the basis of principle of probability, some cogent evidence is to be there establishing the charge.
37. Thus, it is settled that only on presumption and conjectures or surmises even in the departmental proceeding, no punishment can be imposed by the disciplinary authority.
38. We have conscious of the fact that the respondent writ petitioner is a member of disciplined force and the parameter to perform duty is based upon the performance of service on high integrity and sincerity.
39. But merely because one of the co-employees have been posted in a particular place along with another member of disciplined force and if the said member of the disciplined force commits misconduct, then in absence of any material to connect such misconduct, there cannot be a punishment to the another delinquent employee.
40. So far as the charge that the respondent writ petitioner has not informed the higher authority but the said allegation can only be said to be proved if there would be any material to substantiate that whatever money was kept under stone along with the mobile phone was full within the knowledge of the respondent writ petitioner.
41. But, after going through the inquiry report, no such evidence is available therein. Therefore, the question is that merely because the writ petitioner was deputed along with the said Ayub Khan whose 17 LPA No.201/2023 mobile was recovered from the place where a sum of Rs.1920/- was kept under a stone which does not attract any imputation said to be committed by the writ petitioner respondent in absence of any evidence even said to be indirect evidence.
42. This Court, therefore, is of the view that no material has been found to be there in the inquiry report to the effect that the respondent writ petitioner was having any knowledge about taking the amount of Rs.1920/- which was kept under a stone.
43. The inquiry office ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid fact but the inquiry officer merely on the ground that he was deputed along with Ayub Khan, whose mobile phone was recovered from the place where an amount of Rs.1920/- was also recovered.
44. So far as the charge no.2 is concerned which pertains to not putting sign on the seizure list.
45. It is evident from the inquiry report that the charge no.(ii) has not been proved.
46. This Court, after having discussed the factual and legal issues and coming back to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has found particularly from paragraph-25 of the impugned order that the learned Single Judge after going through the inquiry report found that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the writ petitioner and as such, in absence of any material, no charge would have been proved by the inquiry officer.
47. The aforesaid reasoning has led the learned Single Judge to 18 LPA No.201/2023 interfere with the impugned orders. The learned Single Judge has also come to the opinion that there is no material that the respondent writ petitioner was having any knowledge about commission of such illegal act.
48. This Court, therefore, is of the view that if in such circumstances based upon the material particularly the report of inquiry officer, the learned Single Judge if has interfere with the impugned orders, which according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to suffer from an error.
49. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, as per the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the instant appeal lacks merit.
50. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.
51. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.4071 of 2023 stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Rohit/-A.F.R. 19 LPA No.201/2023