Madhya Pradesh High Court
Audesh Kumar Singh Gaur vs Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission … on 9 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
1 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 9th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 1824 of 2015
AUDESH KUMAR SINGH GAUR
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ravi Jain - Counsel for respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed;
(ii) That, the order dated 29.11.2014 Annexure P/1 and the order
dated 5.2.2015 Annexure P/2 passed by the respondents may
kindly be directed to be quashed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
2 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this
Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the
petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially petitioner was
appointed as Assistant Operator (T.A. Grade-II) in the year 1979 and thereafter
was promoted in the year 1996 as Senior Testing Assistant. Thereafter, on
28.02.2013, petitioner was placed under suspension by the competent authority.
Subsequently, after three months, the suspension order of petitioner was revoked
by the respondents vide order dated 06.05.2013. For revocation of the suspension
order, the respondents issued a charge-sheet dated 30.03.2013, in which three
charges were levelled against petitioner. It is further submitted that along with the
charge-sheet, the relevant documents were not supplied to petitioner, thereby
causing serious prejudice to him. Petitioner demanded the said documents;
however, even after such demand, the documents were not supplied. It is further
submitted that without considering the reply to the charge-sheet, the respondents
appointed the Enquiry Officer as well as the Presenting Officer. Thereafter, the
Enquiry Officer found two charges proved against petitioner, while one charge
was not found proved. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause
notice to petitioner and in turn, petitioner prayed for two weeks’ time to submit
the reply to the show-cause notice. However, without extending him an
apportunity to file reply, Disciplinary Authority imposed the major punishment
of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved,
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate
Authority having considered appeal modified the punishment by awarding
withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
3 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the
petitioner was supplied with the available documents and that the documents
which were available had already been supplied to the petitioner vide order dated
30.05.2014. It is further submitted that the script record register for the period
from 03.12.2012 to 16.03.2013 is not available, which fact is also mentioned in
the departmental inquiry. Therefore, the said document could not be supplied due
to its non-availability. The available documents were already supplied to the
petitioner along with letters dated 30.05.2014 and 26.08.2014. It is further
submitted that the respondents have completed the departmental inquiry and
imposed the punishment in accordance with law after giving sufficient
opportunity of being heard to petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Before considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court would like to consider the scope of interference in
departmental matters.
6. 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 departmentalSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:51564 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
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,
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
5 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
6 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
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)
“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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
7 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
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
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,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
8 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
(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
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)Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:51569 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
“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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
10 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
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.”
7. 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
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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
11 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
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:
“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 isSignature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:515612 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
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
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:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
13 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
“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
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:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
14 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
“15. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the
principles of the Evidence Act have no application in a
domestic enquiry.”
8. 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. This Court can
interfere with the findings of fact, provided they are based on no evidence.
9. The entire departmental inquiry was conducted in accordance with law.
Proper opportunity of being heard was duly extended to the petitioner. Even the
appellate authority considered the appeal of the petitioner and partly allowed the
same, whereby the major punishment was modified into a minor punishment. As
no procedural irregularity has been found and the scope of interference is very
limited, this Court cannot decide the case as an appellate authority.
10. After going through the record of case, judgments of Hon’ble Supreme
Court, it is clear that the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for
petitioner are misconceived. 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 standard of proof
required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof
required in departmental enquiries.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
15 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
11. 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.
12. The petitioner was supplied all available documents vide order dated
30.05.2014 and letters dated 30.05.2014 and 26.08.2014. Thereafter, the
respondents completed the departmental inquiry and imposed punishment in
accordance with law after affording the petitioner sufficient opportunity of being
heard.
13. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer
and had passed an order of punishment. However, appeal was partly allowed by
modify the major punishment into minor punishment. Once the evidence has
been accepted by the departmental authority, in exercise of power of judicial
review, this Court could not interfere with the findings of facts recorded by
reappreciating evidence as if the courts are the appellate authority. The courts
will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5156
16 WP. No. 1824 of 2015
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.
14. 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. 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 natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to
adjudication on merit by reappreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority.
In the respondent/department absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty
needs to be preserved by every employee. Under these circumstances, the degree
of proof in departmental enquiry is not as strict as it is required in criminal case.
The departmental enquiries are decided on preponderance of probability.
15. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. Petition fails and
is hereby dismissed.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
Ahmad
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 2/12/2026
11:01:52 AM