Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuraj Singh Kewat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
1 WP-20375-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 20375 of 2017
RAGHURAJ SINGH KEWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S.P. Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Mishra - Government Advocate for the respondents /State.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition praying for the following reliefs :-
“(a) A Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ,
Order or Direction may kindly be issued for quashing
the impugned order of punishment dated 05.05.2017
(Annexure-P/1) passed by the disciplinary authority
namely Collector, Distt. Guna (respondent No. 3 herein)
as also for quashing the impugned appellate order dated
05.09.2017 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Appellate
Authority namely the respondent No. 2-Commissioner,
Gwalior Division. And as a consequence of quashing of
the said impugned orders, all the consequential benefits
flowing therefrom, be also directed to be paid/extended
to the petitioner.
(b) Any other such orders or directions which the
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, be also passed alongwith the
costs of the writ petition.”
2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is holding
the post of Peon in the Department of the respondents. At the relevant time,
when the petitioner was posted in Tehsil Chachoda, he was ordered to be
placed under suspension vide order dated 16.02.2016 by the respondent No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
2 WP-20375-2017
3 Collector, Distt. Guna. Thereafter, charge-sheet has been issued.
Thereafter, petitioner submitted reply against the charge sheet issued against
him. Thereafter, enquiry officer has been appointed and the enquiry officer
has conducted the enquiry and the copy of the enquiry report has been
supplied to the petitioner. Petitioner has submitted reply to the enquiry
report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has not considered the facts and
grounds mentioned by the petitioner in the reply and vide order dated
05/05/2017 punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with
cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner,
thereafter, filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate
authority has also not considered the facts and grounds mentioned in the
appeal and rejected the appeal vide order dated 05/09/2017. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further submits that during enquiry opportunity of cross
examination has not been given to the petitioner and in a mechanical and
cryptic manner without application of mind and without considering the facts
and grounds mentioned in the reply, petitioner’s reply has not been
considered and major punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with
cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner and the appellate
authority has also rejected the appeal by not passing a speaking and reasoned
order.
3 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents / State submits
that the enquiry officer was duly appointed, who conducted the proceedings
fairly. The petitioner was provided adequate opportunity to present his
defense, including the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, but during
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
3 WP-20375-2017
enquiry, the petitioner has not objected neither before the enquiry officer nor
before the disciplinary authority that opportunity to cross examine the
witnesses has not been provided to him and only for the first time in the
instant petition, petitioner has mentioned this fact. After considering the
findings of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority issued a show-
cause notice dated 30.03.2017 enclosing the enquiry report. The petitioner
submitted his reply thereto on 12.04.2017, which was duly considered by the
Disciplinary Authority before passing the final order and the disciplinary
authority passed impugned order rightly by imposing major punishment
of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect upon the
petitioner. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rightly
considered by the Appellate Authority and after application of mind, a
reasoned order dated 05.09.2017 was passed after taking into account all
relevant aspects, including the petitioner’s contentions. The petitioner has
failed to point out any specific violation of natural justice or prejudice caused
to him during the enquiry. The findings are based on evidence and cannot be
interfered with in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. He further
submits that judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to examining
whether the enquiry was held fairly and in accordance with rules. Learned
counsel for the respondents/State further submitted that the disciplinary as
well as appellate authority after taking into consideration the ground raised
and material available on record has also declined interference and
maintained the impugned order passed as per Annexure P-1 which is well
within parameters of law, warrants no further interference. The entire
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
4 WP-20375-2017
departmental enquiry has been conducted in consonance of Rules and
Provisions contemplated and after granting proper opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner, the order of punishment has been passed by Disciplinary
Authority and in such circumstances, in view of the well settled position in
respect of decision of the administrative order whether rational or
reasonable, the scope of interference under the writ proceedings become very
narrow and limited, hence no interference is warrants and the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
4 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5 . Before considering the submissions made by counsel for petitioner,
this Court would like to consider the scope of interference by this Court 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 threeJudge 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
5 WP-20375-2017
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
6 WP-20375-2017
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
coextensive 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)
“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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
7 WP-20375-2017
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
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
8 WP-20375-2017
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. 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 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 touch stone of that test, the Tribunal or the
High Court could interfere with the findings recorded by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
9 WP-20375-2017
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.”
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 disciplinarySignature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:1320010 WP-20375-2017
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:
“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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
11 WP-20375-2017
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:
“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)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
12 WP-20375-2017
“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:
“15. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the
principles of the Evidence Act have no application in a
domestic enquiry.”
7 . 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.
8 . After going through the record of case, judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is clear that the aforesaid submissions 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.
9 . Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
13 WP-20375-2017
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.
10. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry
officer and had passed an order of punishment. An appeal was also
dismissed. 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 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.
11. It is impermissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence
which had been considered by the inquiry officer, a disciplinary authority
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:13200
14 WP-20375-2017
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.
12. Accordingly, no case is made out warranting interference. Petition
fails and is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Durgekar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SANJAY
NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR
Signing time: 4/24/2026
10:16:02 AM
