Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
P. Ananda Rao vs Registrar, A.P. Administrative ... on 7 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(2)ALD239, 2002(1)ALT568
Author: B. Sudershan Reddy
Bench: B. Sudershan Reddy
JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in OA No.5843 of 1994, dated 18-6-1999 read with Rev. M.A.No. 2108 of 1999, dated 2-8-1999. The petitioner accordingly prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the said order passed by the Tribunal as illegal, arbitrary, vitiated by non-application of mind and country to law laid down by the Supreme Court. The petitioner accordingly prays for grant of appropriate consequential orders setting aside the order of removal issued in proceedings Rc.No. 12005/87/A7, dated 15-6-1992 by the third respondent-District Collector as confirmed by the order dated 2-9-1994 by the second respondent-Commissioner of Land Revenue. The petitioner in effect challenges the order of removal passed against him dated 15-6-1992 by the third respondent and confirmed by the second respondent-appellate authority by order dated 2-9-1994.
2. The prayer, in our considered opinion, is misconceived. The petitioner if at all could have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in OA No. 5843 of 1994 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and to quash the orders passed therein. The orders passed by the Tribunal in exercise of the power of judicial review, which is supplementary in its nature to the power exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be characterised as arbitrary. However, we do not propose to reject the writ petition on that ground and accordingly we proceed to dispose of the matter on merits and decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any relief as such in this writ petition.
3. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the order passed by the Tribunal is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record requiring any correction as such by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction?
4. Before adverting to the said question, it may be necessary to briefly notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this writ petition:
5. The petitioner at the relevant time, when the departmental enquiry was initiated against him, was working as Civil Supplies Revenue Inspector, Mandal Revenue Officer's Office, Sabbavaram. He worked in that capacity for the period from 28-5-1987 to 18-11-1987. He was in-charge of the stocks in Mandal Level Stock point, Sabbavaram. The District Supply Officer (Rural), Visakhapatnam made the physical verification of the stocks on 11-11-1987 as per the instructions of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam. During the course of physical verification, the District Supply Officer has noticed the shortages of stocks in the MLS Point, Sabbavaram. It is not necessary to notice the details of the shortages.
6. The District Supply Officer has accordingly submitted a report dated 12-11-1987 to the Joint Collector inter alia stating that the petitioner herein was responsible for the loss of the stocks and accordingly recommended to relieve the petitioner of his post of Civil Supplies Revenue Inspector.
7. The petitioner was accordingly kept under suspension pending enquiry by an order dated 14-11-1987 and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam was appointed as Enquiry Officer authorising to frame definite charges against the petitioner and conduct enquiry in accordance with the instructions contained in Appendix-VI of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
The Revenue Divisional officer accordingly issued charge memo dated 3-1-1988 to the petitioner herein requiring his explanation to the said charge memo. The petitioner made his representation dated 11-1-1988 to the Enquiry Officer and sought for certain documents including (1) copy of the charge list handed over by Sri K.H.V. Satyadev, CSRI, (2) copy of charge list handed over by Sri V. Jagennadha Rao, Head Clerk, MRO's office for the periods of the operated the civil supplies godown; (3) copy of charge list of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sabbavaram for the period he operated the civil supplies godown during NGO's strike and (4) copy of charge list of Sri R. Adinarayana, CSRI for the periods he operated the civil supplies godown etc. By memo dated 19-1-1988 the Enquiry Officer informed the petitioner that the copies of the charge lists referred to by him are not available in the office. However, the sales and stock registers of rice, sugar and palmolein oil for the period from 1-7-1986 to 11-11-987 were available and he may peruse the records on any working day before 25-1-1998 and submit his explanation before 31-1-1988.
8. Even while the enquiry was at the initial stage, a demand notice dated 11-3-1988 for an amount of Rs. 4,08,212-46 paise was sent to the petitioner.
9. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension dated 14-11-1987 in RP No. 825 of 1988 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal without interfering with the order of suspension, however, granted stay of further proceedings pursuant to the demand notice proposing to recover the amounts from the petitioner.
10. The petitioner made a representation dated 11-8-1989 requesting to change the Enquiry Officer for whatever reason and it is not necessary to notice the reasons as to why the petitioner wanted the change of the Enquiry Officer. The competent authority by proceedings dated 27-8-1989 having conceded to the request of the petitioner accordingly appointed the District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam as Enquiry Officer (hereinafter called as "the second Enquiry Officer").
11. The Second Enquiry Officer has framed one definite charge against the petitioner on 14-10-1989, which is to the following effect:
"That Sri P. Anand Rao, formerly CSRI, Sabbavaram (under suspension) while he was in-charge of the MLS point located at Sabbavaram had diverted the PDS commodities from the godown for his personal gains and thus caused shortages as enumerated hereunder:
Rice (fine) Qts. 693-05-635 Rice (common) 2-70-000 Rice (super fine) 11-52-382 Sugar 11-53-000 P. Oil 1-34-000"
12. The petitioner accordingly submitted his explanation on 2-8-1990 after about more than a period often months.
13. The second Enquiry Officer having conducted a detailed enquiry held that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved. The Second Enquiry Officer noticed the attempts made by the petitioner herein to prolong the enquiry. The petitioner went on making representations for supply of some or other documents, which were not at all relevant for the purpose of enquiry. The petitioner went on insisting for supply of some documents, which are the matters of routine in daily administration. At one stage the petitioner wanted to examine 15 witnesses other than those mentioned in the questionnaire. The second Enquiry Officer rejected the request on the ground that the witnesses proposed to be examined were not at all relevant for the purpose of the present enquiry. The second Enquiry Officer having verified the complete records relating to the case recorded a definite and categorical finding that the petitioner was responsible for the shortages of the stock.
14. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam having perused the enquiry report provisionally concluded to award punishment of removal of the petitioner from the service for the huge misappropriation of stocks meant for public distribution system besides recovery of Rs. 4,08-212-46 paise at penal rates. The petitioner was accordingly directed to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice dated 30-9-1991. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation dated 24-10-1991. The District Collector having considered the explanation offered by the petitioner and having adverted to the various contentions raised by him agreed with the findings of the second Enquiry Officer and accordingly held that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved. The District Collector categorically found that the petitioner has misappropriated the stocks found as shortage during the physical verification of the stocks by the District Supply officer (Rural), Visakhapatnam on 11-11-987. The District Collector also agreed with the observations of the second Enquiry Officer that the petitioner has gone to the extent of making interpolation in some of the official letters disclosing the evil design on his part to cover his misdeeds. The District Collector accordingly rejected to plea of the petitioner that the shortages in stocks were in existence even before this joining duty. The District Collector accordingly rejected the plea taken by the petitioner that the shortages were in existence even before his joining duty. The District Collector accordingly rejected the plea taken by the petitioner that the shortage in stocks was the result of non-handing over the said stocks by his predecessors. The competent authority accordingly found that the petitioner deserves removal from the service and accordingly passed the orders.
15. The petitioner questioned the said order before the appellate authority-Commissioner of Land Revenue. The appellate authority having once again considered the entire material available on record did not see any reason to take a different view other than the one taken by the competent authority and accordingly confirmed the order passed by the competent authority directing the removal of the petitioner from service and also to recover the amounts towards the loss sustained by the State from the petitioner.
16. The petitioner challenged the same in OA No.5843 of 1994 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that the enquiry officer failed to furnish the relevant documents to the petitioner for preparing his defence in spite of his repeated requests. It was also contended that the Enquiry Officer has not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and committed an irregularity in examining the witnesses in his absence. It was also contended that the Enquiry Officer refused to summon the witnesses as defence witnesses and simply directed the petitioner to produce his own witnesses. In nutshell, the petitioner contended that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the CCA rules and further the enquiry conducted is totally vitiated for the reason of non-compliance of principles of natural justice.
17. During the course of arguments, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that on the date of enquiry, the petitioner was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1,010/- and as per the decision of the Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Dr. K. Ramachamdran, , the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner ought to have been referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the enquiry held against him by the enquiry officer at the instance of the disciplinary authority suffers from junsdictional errors. It was contended that the disciplinary authority has no jurisdiction either to make an enquiry or order an enquiry against the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove. The Tribunal permitted the petitioner to raise such contentions during the course of hearing of the application though such a plea has not been taken by the petitioner in the application. The Tribunal having considered the submissions of the petitioner rejected the same and accordingly confirmed the order of removal passed against him.
18. With regard to the legal contention urged by the petitioner about the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to make an enquiry against him, the Tribunal held that the charges were framed against the petitioner on 14-10-1989, that is to say, after the amendment of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1961 (for short 'the 1961 Disciplinary Rules'). The said Rules were superseded in the year 1989 which came into force with effect from 3-6-1989. The Tribunal held that according to the amended Rules the cases of misconduct on the part of the Gazetted Officers along may have to be referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. Admittedly, the--petitioner was a non-gazetted officer when the charges were framed against him and hence it was not necessary to refer the misconduct on the part of the petitioner to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings.
19. The Tribunal after an elaborate consideration of the matter rejected the contention of the petitioner that he is not responsible for the shortages in the Mandal Level Stock point as it is the responsibility of the Mandal Revenue Officer to sign all the acknowledgments and Truck receipts in respect of the stock received. The Tribunal rejected the contention and held that even if the Mandal Revenue Officer is required to send the monthly physical verification reports in regard to the stocks to the higher authorities and the failure on his part to do so would not absolve the petitioner of his responsibility for the shortages caused in the stocks when he was in actual in-charge of the godown and operated the stocks and maintained the books of account. The Tribunal also rejected the contention of the petitioner that his predecessor had not handed over the stocks to him and that in spite of his repeated requests to the Mandal Revenue Officer to arrange for physical verification of the stocks no action has been taken. The Tribunal held that it was the responsibility of the petitioner to get the stocks verified immediately after his taking over the charge. The petitioner could have even refused to take charge of the stocks without the physical verification of the stocks from his predecessor. The fact remains that the petitioner did not take up any verification of the stocks for himself and note the available stock on the date when he assumed the charge.
20. The Tribunal dealt with the contention of the petitioner that he wrote letters to the Mandal Revenue Officer for physical verification and that he wrote a letter to the authorities informing that he is operating the godown according to the book balances. The Tribunal found that those letters purported to have been sent by the petitioner were never received by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Photostat copies of the letters filed by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer were found to be tampered with containing interpolations.
The Tribunal also rejected the contention of the petitioner that certain vital documents were not supplied to him even though such a request has been made. The Tribunal found that the petitioner went on asking for supply of documents which were irrelevant for the purpose of recording findings with regard to the charge framed against him. The Tribunal for instance noticed that the petitioner has asked for pay bill acquaintance register from 28-5-1987 to 18-11-1987 to show that his salaries were stopped for want of physical verification reports. The petitioner has also asked for copies of the charge lists handed over by his predecessors to show that there was no practice of handing over the charge to successors and the report of the technical officers certifying the capacity of godown as there were contradictory reports regarding the capacity of the godown. The Tribunal observed that those documents have no direct bearing whatsoever on the charge framed against the petitioner, which relates to the shortage of stocks when he was the in-charge of the godown. The Tribunal accordingly found that non-supply of those documents to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, which are totally irrelevant, did not result in any prejudice whatsoever to the case of the petitioner. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the Original Application.
21. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application in Rev. MA No. 2018 of 1999 on the main ground that the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the disciplinary action was initiated after 3-6-1989. It was the case of the petitioner that by an order dated 3-1-1988 the Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold enquiry against the petitioner and, therefore, it shall be deemed that the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner on 3-1-1988 and as on that date the respondents had no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings in view of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, I960 ( for short 'the Act'). The Tribunal rejected the said review application holding that on an application filed by the petitioner himself, the second Enquiry Officer was appointed who framed fresh charges on 14-10-1989 and served the same upon the petitioner on 29-10-1989, based upon which the second Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted a report to the District Collector resulting in proceedings dated 15-6-1992 removing the petitioner from the service.
22. The learned Counsel for the petitioner made similar submissions as the one made on behalf of the petitioner in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal before us. It is contended that the penalty of removal imposed upon the petitioner by the competent authority without referring the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings as it required under Section 4 of the Act is without jurisdiction. It is contended that the disciplinary proceedings could be held only by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. K. Ramachandran (supra).
23. Section 4 of the Act, prior to its amendment by Andhra Pradesh Act 6 of 1993, provided as under:
"4. Cases to be referred to Tribunal:--The Government shall refer to the Tribunal for enquiry and report such cases as may be prescribed of allegations of misconduct on the part of the Government servants."
24. The Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the Act takes away the jurisdiction of the Government to hold departmental enquiry for the misconduct committed by the employee. It has no choice except to refer the case to the Tribunal.
25. The 1961 Disciplinary Rules under the Act were made by the Government and were published in G.O. Ms. No.895, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 18th July, 1961. Rule 3, which is relevant, reads as follows:
"Rule 3. (1) The Government may, subject to the provisions of Rule 4 refer to the Tribunal for enquiry and report under Section 4 of the Act-
(a) cases relating to Government servants drawing a basic pay of Rs.360 and above per mensem in respect of matters involving misconduct; and
(b) cases relating to Government servant drawing a basic pay of less than Rs.600/- per mensem in respect of matters involving misconduct committed by such Government servant either jointly with other Government servants drawing a basic pay of not less than Rs.360 per mensem or in the course of the same transaction involving misconduct committed by such other Government servants:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to refer to the Tribunal any case in which the Tribunal has at any previous stage reported its findings in regard to the order to be passed and no fresh question has thereafter arisen for determination.
(2) Sub-rule (2) is omitted as per G.O. Ms. No. 359, GAD (Ser.C), dated 22-5-1978.
(2-A) Where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the Government may make an order directing that disciplinary proceeding against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding; and thereupon the Tribunal shall conduct the enquiry into such case accordingly.
(3) notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule (1) or (2), cases arising in the Judicial Department and cases of officers and servants of the High Court who come under the rule making control of the Chief Justice as laid down in Article 229 of the Constitution of India shall not be referred to the Tribunal."
26. It would be necessary to notice Rule 4 also because Rule 3 referred to hereinabove says that the Government may, subject to the provisions of Rule 4, refer to the Tribunal for enquiry and report under Section 4 of the Act. Rule 4 reads as follows:
"Rule 4. (1) In every case referred to in Sub-rule (1) or (2) of Rule 3, on completion of investigation, the Anti-Corruption Department or other departmental authority concerned shall submit a report of the case of the Government.
(2) The Government shall after examining such records and after consulting the Heads of Departments concerned, if necessary, decide whether the case shall be tried in a Court of Law or inquired into by the Tribunal or departmental authority.
(3) If the Government decide that the case shall be inquired into by the Tribunal, they shall send the records relating thereto to the Tribunal.
(4) In any case where the Head of the Department is not consulted, he shall be informed of the action that is being taken.
(5) There shall be a Director of Prosecutions and as many Additional Directors of Prosecutions as may be considered necessary to conduct enquiries on behalf of the Government in disciplinary cases before the Tribunal and the accused officer concerned shall be allowed to be represented by Counsel. In case where the Director of Prosecutions or any of the additional Directors of Prosecutions cannot attend to examinations of witnesses on commission, an ad hoc Director of Prosecutions shall be appointed."
27. A plain reading of Rules 3 and 4 would make it clear that even under the un-amended provisions of the Act the Government retained the power to decide whether the case should be sent to be tried in a Court of law or required into by the Tribunal or by the departmental authority.
28. The Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act II of the i960 made the rules known as "Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989" in supersession of the Rules issued in the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1961, G.O. Ms. No.895, General Administration (Services-D) Department, dated the 18th July, 1961. The said rules came into effect on 3-6-1989. According to the amended Rule 3, the Government is required to refer to the Tribunal for enquiry and report under Section 4 of the Act-
(a) cases relating to Gazetted Officers in respect of matters involving misconduct; and
(b) cases relating to Non-Gazetted Officers in respect of matters involving misconduct committed by such Government servants either jointly with Gazetted Officers or in the course of the same transaction involving misconduct committed by the Gazetted Officers.
29. It is the case of the petitioner that the amended rules which have come into force on 3-6-1989 have no application to his case since by an order dated 3-1-1988 the Enquiry Officer has issued a charge memo to the petitioner and as on that date 1961 Disciplinary Rules were in force. His case is squarely covered by the 1961 Disciplinary Rules is the submission. It is also submitted that the amendment to Section 4 by Act 6 of 1993 substituting the word 'may' for 'shall', which is admittedly prospective in its nature, has no application to the case of the petitioner.
30. We have already noticed the un-amended Section 4 of the Act.
31. A plain reading of Section 4 would make it clear that the Government and Section 4, as it stood un-amended, was required to refer to the Tribunal for enquiry and report only such cases of allegations of misconduct on the part of Government Servants . It is not as if the Government was required to take any permission from the Tribunal for initiating enquiry against the Government Servant. Rule 4 of the Rules, which we have already referred to, would make it clear that the departmental authority concerned was required to submit a report of the case to the Government on completion of investigation of the facts, in cases involving allegations of misconduct. It is not as if mere proposal to make disciplinary enquiry was required to be sent to the Government. The expression 'allegations of misconduct' used in Section 4 is of importance. In our considered opinion, mere decision to hold an enquiry by departmental authority concerned itself would not amount to levelling allegations of misconduct. The decision to take up disciplinary proceedings should lead to some further investigation and only upon completion of such investigation and submission of a report to the Government would lead to reference to the Tribunal for enquiry into those allegations of misconduct.
32. In the instant case, the appointment of the Enquiry Officer by an order dated 3-1-1988 and the Enquiry Officer issuing a charge memo to the petitioner is of no consequence, since by the subsequent proceedings dated 27-8-1989 the second Enquiry Officer was appointed by the competent authority to make an Enquiry into the misconduct of the petitioner. The petitioner himself made a representation on 11-8-1989 and had sought for the change of the Enquiry Officer. From 3-1-1988 until the Enquiry Officer was changed and second Enquiry Officer was appointed nothing moved in the matter. The allegations of misconduct were made against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 14-10-1989 issued by the Second Enquiry Officer, by the time Rule 3 of the 1961 Disciplinary Rules was amended and under the amended rules the cases of only Gazetted Officers were required to be referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings for enquiry. The petitioner admittedly is not a Gazetted Officer. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The proceedings dated 14-11-1987 on the file of the District Collector suspending the petitioner from the service pending enquiry in public interest cannot be equated to that of the allegations of misconduct made against the petitioner, as on that date there were no allegations of misconduct. The order would disclose that the authority came only to a prima facie conclusion of the petitioner being involved in causing loss of Government money. It is under those circumstances, the competent authority has decided to conduct an enquiry and accordingly appointed an Enquiry Officer. The allegations of misconduct against the petitioner were crystalised as is evident from the charge memo dated 14-10-1989 issued by the second Enquiry Officer. In the circumstances, we reject the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
33. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that two crucial witnesses - one Satyadev and Jagannadha Rao, predecessors of the petitioner holding the charge of the godown were examined on 16-6-1990 in the absence of the petitioner without giving an opportunity to cross-examine them. This singular fact, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, would vitiate the whole of the enquiry. We are not impressed by the submission made by the learned Counsel for by the petitioner. The second Enquiry Officer clearly mentions in his report that on 16-6-1990 - the date fixed for enquiry, the petitioner was not at all present and abstained himself.
34. The petitioner did not make any request before the Enquiry Officer to summon those witnesses for cross-examination. Having failed to make any such request, the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend that he was prevented from cross-examining those two witnesses. At any rate, neither before the Tribunal nor before us the petitioner could show that non-cross-examination of those witnesses has caused any prejudice to his case. It needs no reiteration in our hands that neither the provisions of Evidence Act nor the technical rules of Evidence are applicable to the departmental enquiries.
35. It is further submitted that the second Enquiry Officer did not give any opportunity to cross-examine K. Venkateswar Rao who is examined as one of the witnesses. The said K. Venkateswar Rao is none other than the first Enquiry Officer who was working as Revenue Divisional Officer at the relevant time. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner made any request before the Second Enquiry Officer to cross-examine him. The petitioner made an attempt to confuse the issue projecting as if he requested for a copy of the statement of the said K. Venkateswar Rao. Such a request, no doubt, is made by the petitioner in his explanation to the show-cause notice before the Second Enquiry Officer. The reference to the statement of the said K. Venkateswar Rao in his explanation before the second Enquiry Officer, obviously, does not relate to the statement of the said K. Venkateswar Rao made before the second Enquiry Officer. By the time he made request for a copy of the said statement of K. Venkateswar Rao, obviously, he was not examined as a witness, since the evidence commenced before the second Enquiry Officer only after the reply to the show-cause notice. The reference made by the Second Enquiry Officer about the request of the petitioner for supply of a copy of the statement of K. Venkateswar Rao, obviously, is with regard to the preliminary statement made by the said Venkateswar Rao before the commencement of the enquiry. We accordingly reject the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
36. A perusal of the record would undoubtedly disclose the dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner from time to time. The petitioner made all possible efforts to protract, obstruct and stall the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. We may have to notice that to the charge memo issued by the second Enquiry Officer dated 14-10-1989 the petitioner submitted his explanation only on 2-8-1990, that is to say, after a period of about ten months. In between, the petitioner went on indulging in unnecessary correspondence.
37. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that he was not aware of the posting of the case on 16-6-1990 when the two witnesses were examined in his absence. In the normal course, the petitioner could have requested to summon those witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination on the next date of hearing if he was not aware of the date of enquiry. No such steps were taken. The petitioner on the other hand participated in the enquiry on its next date of hearing without any demur.
38. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal did not commit any error whatsoever in dismissing the Original Application as well as the review application filed by the petitioner. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, in our considered opinion, are not vitiated for whatever reason. Re-appreciation of evidence by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is totally impermissible. The findings in this case recorded by the Tribunal cannot be characterised as perverse, since they are based upon appreciation of evidence available on record.
39. However, in order to avoid any further controversy and to satisfy ourselves about the correctness of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, we have carefully not only gone through the order passed by the Tribunal, but also perused the entire material available on record. We do not find any error whatsoever apparent on the face of the record.
40. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.