JUDGMENT 1. - Bhanwar Lal, petitioner, was employed as a U.D.C. in Jagir Department of the State of Rajasthan and was posted at Nagaur upto the year 1962. A charge-sheet along with statement of allegations dated February 23, 1961 was served upon the petitioner and it was alleged that he individually and conjointly with three other delinquent officers, wilfully and dishonestly tampered with and committed forgery in Government record or caused tampering and forgery being committed therein with a view to secure wrongful gain for himself and his collaborators and also to the Jagirdars, thereby abusing his official position, causing substantial loss to the Government to the tune of thousands of rupees, the details of which were mentioned in the statement of allegations annexed to the charge sheet. A joint inquiry was constituted against him along with the other three delinquent officers, namely, Shri C.B.L. Gupta, the then Deputy Collector (Jagir), Nagaur, Sohan Lal Accounts Clerk and Karan Singh another U.D.C., who was also posted in the same office at Nagaur at that time conducted by Shri S.S. Gupta, the then Commissioner for Department Inquiries, Rajasthan, who inquired into the allegations made against the petitioner and the other delinquent officers, in respect of 11 Jagir claim cases, relating to the period from 1957 to 1960. As a result of the aforesaid inquiry; the Commissioner for Department Inquiries, Rajasthan, came to the conclusion that all the 11 allegations could not be proved against any of the delinquent officers and as such the charges framed against them, including the petitioner, completely failed. However, the Inquiry Officers during the course of the inquiry, found that a new page was added by the petitioner to the completed. Indent No. 5 (which was marked as Ex. D/13 in the course of the inquiry); on which two claims were mentioned at Serial Nos. 2089 & 2090 by the petitioner & Jagir bonds of the value of Rs. 4950/- and Rs. 5200/- respectively were sought to be obtained on the basis of the aforesaid addition in the Indent No. 5. The Inquiry Officer, on the basis of the facts produced before him during the afore said inquiry, recorded a finding that the petitioner was guilty of making false entries on a new page added to the aforesaid. 4950/- and Rs. 5200/- respectively were sought to be obtained on the basis of the aforesaid addition in the Indent No. 5. The Inquiry Officer, on the basis of the facts produced before him during the afore said inquiry, recorded a finding that the petitioner was guilty of making false entries on a new page added to the aforesaid. Indent No. 5 and thereby making an attempt to defraud the Government of the Jagir bonds of the value of Rs. 10,150/-. He therefore, submitted his report to the State Govt. for appropriate action. 2. The State Government, by its order dated 6.4.67 accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer in its entirety, exonerating all the four delinquent officers, including the petitioner, in respect of the 11 allegations made against them, but imposed the penalty of stoppage of grade increments for three years with cumulative effect, upon the petitioner; for his making false entries in respect of Sl. Nos. 2089 to 2090 to the completed Indent No. 5 & thereby attempting to defraud the Govt. of Jagir bonds of the value of Rs. 10,150/-. The petitioner preferred a review petition before the State Government on April 16, 1967, but the same was rejected by it order dated January 21, 1969, as the State Government found that there was not force in the review petition justifying any interference. The petitioner thereupon submitted this writ petition challenging the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 29.12.66 and the order of the State Government in respect thereof dated 6.4.67. 3. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged addition of a page and making of false entries at serial No. 2089 to 2090 in the Indent No. 5 was not included in the Statement of Allegations supplied to him, nor it formed the subject matter of the inquiry against the petitioner and as such he could not have been found guilty in respect thereof by the Enquiry Officer. His further submission is that the petitioner had neither sufficient notice of the aforesaid charge nor sufficient opportunity was afforded to him to explain his conduct or to cross-examine the witnesses in respect thereof or to produce his evidence in defence. His further submission is that the petitioner had neither sufficient notice of the aforesaid charge nor sufficient opportunity was afforded to him to explain his conduct or to cross-examine the witnesses in respect thereof or to produce his evidence in defence. He further submits that there is no evidence at all to prove the guilt of the petitioner, even if the material on record is taken into consideration and sued against him, in respect of the aforesaid allegation. 4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that no procedural irregularity was committed by the Inquiry Officer and that he afforded adequate opportunity to the petitioner to explain his conduct in respect of the allegation in question and he was also afforded adequate opportunity to produce evidence in his defence. His further submission is that there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner reasonably in respect of this allegation and that the Inquiry Officer was justified in coming to the conclusion that he did. He further submits that this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not look into the sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence in the departmental enquiry. He finally urged that this Court should not interfere in the present case as there was no procedural irregularity and as the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer is based on evidence. 5. To appreciate the rival contentions it is necessary for me to mention some facts. As already indicated above, the charge against the petitioner was in very wide terms that he individually and conjointly with 3 others and wilfully and dishonestly tampered with and committed forgery in Government record, with a view to secure wrongful gain for himself and his colleagues as also to the Jagirdars. The matter relating to items mentioned at serial Nos. 2089 to 2090 in Indent No. 5 are in respect of a Jagir in village Mundiyar in Distt. Nagaur and relates to Raghunath Dan son of Karnidan and his son Ranchor Dan. During the course of the inquiry one Radha Mohan, who was also a U.D.C. in the Office of the Dy. Collector (Jagir) Nagaur, was examined as P.W. 2. One of the delinquent officer, Shri C.B.L. Gupta during the cross-examination of Radha Mohan asked him certain questions in the presence of the petitioner. During the course of the inquiry one Radha Mohan, who was also a U.D.C. in the Office of the Dy. Collector (Jagir) Nagaur, was examined as P.W. 2. One of the delinquent officer, Shri C.B.L. Gupta during the cross-examination of Radha Mohan asked him certain questions in the presence of the petitioner. The reply to which was as under:- "The Collector Nagaur had given a room in his Bungalow situated in front of the Collectorate Building in Nagaur to keep the record of small Jagirs and that room used to be in the custody of Shri Bhanwar Lal, D.O.I, produce Ex. D.13 indent prepared for Sarvshri Ranchordan S/o Raghunatedan and Raghunath Dan, S/o Karni Dan which has been prepared by Shri Bhanwarlal, D.O. whose writing I fully recognize. This claim was prepared in respect of these Jagirdars as if they had Jagir in village Mundiyar, Tehsil Nagaur. The fact is that these Jagirdars did not possess any Jagir in this village but they had jagirs in village Padeli, Tehsil Jayal for which separate indent had been prepared to the extent of Rs. 4950/- and Rs. 5200/- respectively. 6 copies of this indent are there but this indent could not be got signed by you." This witness also produced the original Indent No. 5, which was marked as Ex. D.13. The admitted procedure adopted for the grant of compensation in respect of small Jagirs resumed under the Rajasthan Land Reform and Resumption of Jagirs Act, was that in the first instance a 'khatuni'; was prepared from the settlement records by the Tehsildar, which was checked by the Deputy Collector (Jagir) & thereafter on the basis of such 'khatuni', provisional awards were prepared and issued. Objections were invited in respect of the provisional awards, which were heard by the Deputy Collector (Jagir), who, then issued final awards in respect of each Jagir. Finally an indent was issued to the Reserve Bank of India under the signatures of the Deputy Collector (Jagir) and the bonds were obtained, which were distributed by the Deputy Collector (Jagir) to the claimants. Finally an indent was issued to the Reserve Bank of India under the signatures of the Deputy Collector (Jagir) and the bonds were obtained, which were distributed by the Deputy Collector (Jagir) to the claimants. In the Indent, the total value of the bonds in respect of each Jagirdar or his co-sharers is entered along with other particulars, namely, the name of the Jagir and the Tehsil in which it is situated, the name of the Jagirdar, date of resumption, number of the claim, serial number in the register in which the final award is entered and the details regarding the number & denomination of bonds required in respect of each person. In the Indent No. 5 the names of Raghunathdan son of Karnidan and his son Ranchordan have been entered at S.No. 2089 to 2090, in respect of alleged claims pertaining to their Jagir in village Mundiyar in Tehsil Nagaur. 6. In the course of the inquiry another witness Laxman Singh son of Ranchor Dan was examined as P.W. 22. He was cross-examined by the petitioner on this aspect of the case and he stated that neither his grand father nor his father possessed any Jagir in village Mundiyar. The petitioner was asked a specific question by the Inquiry Officer during his examination as to whether he had prepared the Indent in respect of Shri Ranchordan son of Raghunathdan regarding village Mundiyar, Tehsil Nagaur and if he did so what was the basis thereof? The reply of the petitioner to the aforesaid question was as follows:- "I had prepared this indent marked Ex. D/13 on the basis of final Award. Shri C.B.L. Gupta, Dy. Collector (Jagir) has signed this indent as the end of Sl.No. 2088 but he has not put his signatures on the page having Sl. Nos. 2089 to 2090 in continuation of the previous Sl. Nos. for reasons best known to him. The Khatauni claim, provisional and Final Awards in respect of Jagirs entered at Sl.Nos. 2089 to 2090 of village Mundiyar should be available in office record. Nos. 2089 to 2090 in continuation of the previous Sl. Nos. for reasons best known to him. The Khatauni claim, provisional and Final Awards in respect of Jagirs entered at Sl.Nos. 2089 to 2090 of village Mundiyar should be available in office record. I do not remember whether Sarvashri Ranchordan and Raghunathdan possessed Jagirs in village Mundiyar of Tehsil Nagaur or not." It would be pertinent to mention here that two of the 11 allegations made against the petitioner and three other delinquent officers, related to the Jagir claim cases of Ragunath Dan son of Karni Dan and Ranchor Dan son of Raghunath Dan, in respect of their Jagir in village Padeli in Tehsil Jayal and it was alleged that although Raghunath Dan had died earlier, the claim in respect of his Jagir was inflated and the bonds received in respect thereof were delivered to some imposter and that the claim in respect of the Jagir of Ranchor Dan was also inflated. It is also interesting to notice here that the claim in respect of which a final award is said to have been passed in favour of Raghunath Dan for his Jagir in village Padeli was for a sum of Rs. 5200/-. Similarly the claim of Ranchor Dan, which was allowed regarding his Jagir in village Padeli was for Rs. 4950/-. These amounts are identical with the amounts mentioned in Indent No. 5 in respect of those very persons and entered at serial Nos. 2089 to 2090 in that Indent, merely the name of the village is different. The Inquiry Officer recorded the following findings in respect of the aforesaid entries regarding Ranchor Dan and Raghunath Dan in Indent No. 5 in his report Ex. 1.:- During the course of inquiry Shri Radha Mohan (P.W.2) has produced Indent (Ex. D/13) in respect of Sarvashri Ranchor Dan, S/o Raghunath Dan and Raghunath Dan, S/o Karni Dan prepared by Shri Bhanwar Lal, D.O. in respect of their Jagir situated in village Mundiyar, Tehsil Nagaur. This witness has categorically stated during his cross-examination that both these Jagirdars did not possess any Jagir in village Mundiyar, Tehsil Nagaur and they had Jagirs only in village Padeli, Tehsil Jayal. This witness has categorically stated during his cross-examination that both these Jagirdars did not possess any Jagir in village Mundiyar, Tehsil Nagaur and they had Jagirs only in village Padeli, Tehsil Jayal. Shri Bhanwar Lal, D.O. has been specifically examined on this point in his detailed statement dated 9.11.66 and he has merely stated that he had prepared this indent on the basis of the Final Award but he has not produced any Final Award to substantiate his stand. This Indent ended at serial No 2088 and the total valuation of the bonds had been written and then signed by Shri C.B.L. Gupta as Deputy Collector (Jagir) which means the Indent had been closed at this serial number. After this a new page has been added with serial Nos. 2089 and 2090 by Shri Bhanwar Lal, D.O. showing Jagirs in village Mundiyar. Tehsil Nagaur in respect of Sarvashri Ranchordan, S/o Raghunath Dan and Raghunath Dan, S/o Karni Dan, although Shri Bhanwar Lal, D.O. should have had knowledge that these persons did not possess any Jagirs in this village. During the course of inquiry Shri Bhanwar Lal, D.O. has exhibited great knowledge about existence of various Jagirs in Nagaur District for he belongs to this district and therefore, it is unbelievable that he did not know that these Jagirdars did not possess any Jagir in village Mundiyar, Tehsil Nagaur. The addition of a page to the completed indent in this case is clearly an attempt on the part of Shri Bhanwar Lal, D.O. to defraud the Government by getting bonds for Rs. 4950/- plus Rs. 5200/- - Rs. 10,150/- in this case. If Shri C.B.L. Gupta, D.O. would not have been fully vigilant and had signed this page of indent then bonds for unfounded Jagirs would have been drawn and the amount paid to certain people resulting in loss to the Government. This Jagir case of the village Mundiyar, Tehsil Nagaur is apart from the main inquiry and since this allegation is separately established beyond the charges framed by the Government about which adequate opportunity to Shri Bhanwar Lal, D.O. has already been afforded to explain his conduct and to adduce evidence in his defence so I record my finding that Shri Bhanwar Lal, D.O. is guilty for this act as provided under sub Rules (7) of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The report is therefore, submitted to the Government for taking appropriate action in this matter." The State Government by its order dated April 6, 1967, accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in their entirety and imposed a penalty of stoppage of grade increment for three years with cumulative effect, upon the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid new charge. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the punishment inflicted by the State Government in respect thereof on the ground that neither any charge was framed nor allegation made against the petitioner in respect of the alleged false entries in Intend No. 5 nor he was given a reasonable opportunity to explain his conduct or to adduce evidence in his defence. The submission of the learned counsel is that neither the 'Khatuni', which constituted the basic record on which the claims of the small Jagirdars were decided, not the provisional and the final awards in respect of the aforesaid Jagir in village Mundiyar, related to the two persons, Raghunath Dan and Ranchor Dan, were produced by the prosecution and that the petitioner explained in his statement that the entries in the Indent No. 5 were made by him on the basis of the final award. His further submission is that it was not possible for the petitioner to know each and every Jagirdar in District Nagaur, nor he was expected to know all of them and as such the petitioner stated before the Inquiry Officer that he did not know as to whether there were any Jagirs of Ranchor Dan or Raghunath Dan in village Mundiyar. According to the learned counsel, therefore, without the production of the 'Khatuni' and the provisional and final awards relating to the Jagirs of these two persons in village Mundiyar, it could not have been held by the Inquiry Officer that the entries made by the petitioner at serial Nos. 2089 and 2090 in the Indent No. 5 were bogus. According to him the production of the final award in respect of the alleged Jagir would have shown that the entries in the Indent No. 5 were correct. He submits that the Indent No. 5, which was marked as Ex. 2089 and 2090 in the Indent No. 5 were bogus. According to him the production of the final award in respect of the alleged Jagir would have shown that the entries in the Indent No. 5 were correct. He submits that the Indent No. 5, which was marked as Ex. D/13 in the course of the enquiry, was produced at the instance of Shri C.B.L. Gupta during the cross-examination of P.W.2 Radha Mohan and the petitioner was not given sufficient notice nor he had any knowledge that the said document would be utilised for recording a finding against him by the Inquiry Officer. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner could have been penalised only in respect of the charges which were the subject matter of the inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The disciplinary authority was bound to frame charges on the basis of specific allegations, in respect of which the inquiry was proposed to be held against him and as the aforesaid question did not form the subject matter of either a charge or even of any allegation, the petitioner was prejudiced and he was not afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity of producing his defence in respect of the alleged entries referred to above. He submitted that even under sub-rule (7) of rule 16, a finding could be recorded during the proceeding of an inquiry in respect of a charge different from that originally framed only if the Government servant has either admitted the facts constituting the said charge or he has been afforded an opportunity of defending himself against it. According to him, in the present case, the petitioner did not admit the facts constituting the alleged charge nor he had been allowed adequate opportunity of defending himself and thus according to him even the provisions of sub rule (7) of Rule 16 were violated. He further submits that there was a joint inquiry against 4 persons, including the petitioner, and he could not think that a new allegation would be sprung up against him out of the cross-examination of a prosecution witness by one of the delinquent officers. 8. Mr. He further submits that there was a joint inquiry against 4 persons, including the petitioner, and he could not think that a new allegation would be sprung up against him out of the cross-examination of a prosecution witness by one of the delinquent officers. 8. Mr. Shrimal, Additional Advocate General, met these submissions and urged that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of defending himself in respect of this charge as he was aware of the production of Indent No. 5, which was marked Ex. D/13, by P.W. 2 Radha Mohan, and the said witness was examined and was cross-examined by Shri C.B.L. Gupta, in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner had also an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness after he was cross examined by Shri C.B.L. Gupta. He appointed out that the petitioner did not ask any question whatsoever to P.W. 2 Radha Mohan regarding this document, although he cross-examined him in great detail. Mr. Shrimal also urged that P.W. 22 Laxman Singh, who is no other than the son of the very same Ranchor Dan, in respect of whom the entry at serial No. 2089 was made by the petitioner in Indent No.5, was cross-examined by the petitioner on this aspect of the matter, as to whether his father or grand father has any Jagir in village Mundiyar, to which the witness replied in the negative. His further contention is that the petitioner was fully alive to the question that the entries made by him at serial Nos. 2089 to 2090 in the Indent No.5 were also to be taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer, while deciding the charge against him and that was why he specifically cross examined Laxman Singh on this aspect of the matter. He also pointed out that the petitioner was furnished a reasonable opportunity to explain, as he was specifically questioned in this respect by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner admitted in his statement that the Indent Ex. He also pointed out that the petitioner was furnished a reasonable opportunity to explain, as he was specifically questioned in this respect by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner admitted in his statement that the Indent Ex. D/13 was prepared by him and that he went on to explain of his own accord that he did not remember whether Ranchor Das and Raghunath Das possessed any Jagir in village Mundiyar, which shows that the petitioner was fully alive to the case of the prosecution that these two persons had no Jagir at all in village Mundiyar and as such there could be no question of preparing any Indent for Jagir bonds in respect of their alleged Jagirs. Mr. Shrimal urged that when there was no Jagir of Raghunath Dan and Ranchor Dan in existence in village Mundiyar, neither any Khatuni nor any provisional or final award in respect there of could have existed and in the ordinary course of official business if there could not have been any claim, regarding a non-existent Jagir, no provisional award or final award in respect of such a non-existent Jagir could have been prepared and issued and issued and thus the entries, admittedly made by the petitioner at serial Nos. 2089 to 2090 in the Intend No. 5 were false and fictitious to his knowledge and they were made by the petitioner obviously with the intention of obtaining Jagir bonds and thereby causing loss to the State Government. 9. The respondents submitted a copy of the Indent No. 5, which was marked Ex. D/13 in the course of the inquiry, in this Court and the same has been taken on record with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also perused the original Indent No. 5 which was produced at the time of the hearing of the writ petition, by the learned Additional Advocate General. I find that at the end of page 72 of this Indent the total amount of bonds indented was entered as Rs. 12,32,100/- under the signatures of Shri C.B.L. Gupta, Deputy Collector (Jagir) Nagaur, and the entry serial No. 2089 is the last entry on page 72. Then on page 73 of the aforesaid Indent there are only two entries bearing serial Nos. 2089 and 2090. 12,32,100/- under the signatures of Shri C.B.L. Gupta, Deputy Collector (Jagir) Nagaur, and the entry serial No. 2089 is the last entry on page 72. Then on page 73 of the aforesaid Indent there are only two entries bearing serial Nos. 2089 and 2090. The names of the Jagirdar are mentioned as Ranchor Dan son of Ragunath Dan and Rahunath Dan son of Karni Dan. Their claim numbers are mentioned as F.1328 and F.1329 respectively. The total value of the bonds required in respect of these two persons is mentioned as Rs. 4950/- and Rs. 5200/-. There are no signatures of Deputy Collector (Jagir) on page 73. These entries pertain to their alleged Jagirs in village Mundiyar in Tehsil Nagaur. The petitioner has admitted in his statement before the Inquiry Officer that he was the author of the aforesaid entries made at page 73 at serial Nos. 2089 and 2090. Now the question is as to whether the Inquiry Officer, on the basis of the aforesaid Indent No. 5 and the statement of Radha Mohan and Laxman Singh along with the reply given by the petitioner to question No. 20 put to him by the Inquiry Officer, could reasonably come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of making false entries in the aforesaid Indent No. 5 which is admittedly a Government record, or there was total absence of evidence before the Inquiry Officer for coming to the aforesaid conclusion. Another question is as to whether the petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity to explain his conduct and produce his defence in this respect and as to whether any prejudice was caused because a formal charge-sheet or statement of allegations was not supplied to him in regard to this matter. 10. So far as the question of adequacy of opportunity is concerned, the facts that the Indent Ex. 10. So far as the question of adequacy of opportunity is concerned, the facts that the Indent Ex. D/13 was produced by Radha Mohan (PW 2) in the presence of the petitioner and after Radha Mohan had categorically stated that Raghunath Dan and Ranchor Dan did not possess any Jagir in village Mundiyar, the petitioner specifically cross-examined Laxman Singh (P.W. 22), who is the son of Ranchor Dan on this aspect of the matter whether his father or his grand-father Raghunath Dan possessed aby Jagir in villag Mundiyar and further in reply to the question put to him by the Inquiry Officer the petitioner admitted having made the entries in question at page 73 of Indent No. 5 and furnished a long explanation, shows that he was fully alive to the matter in issue. Moreover, in his review petition Annexure 3 produced by the respondents (it should have been marked Annexure R/3) the petitioner clearly stated in para 4:- "That although the petitioner was given as opportunity to explain this item and adduce evidence in rebuttal, but the record viz. the page was a part of an unauthenticated record." This goes to show that the petitioner even at that stage admitted that he was given an opportunity to explain his conduct and to adduce his evidence in rebuttal, but his complaint was that he was punished on the basis of an unauthenticated record namely Indent No. 5. It may also be mentioned here that the petitioner was asked by the Inquiry Officer as to whether he desired to produce any evidence in his defence, in reply to which the petitioner stated that he would furnish the list of his defence evidence shortly. Thereafter, on November 21, 1966, the petitioner submitted an application before the Inquiry Officer stating that he did not desire to produce any defence and as such the case may be fixed for arguments. This application of the petitioner has been produced by the respondents along with their reply and marked as Annexure 2 (It should have been marked as Annexure R/2). In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that either the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to explain his conduct or that he was not given adequate opportunity to produce his defence in respect of this matter. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that either the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to explain his conduct or that he was not given adequate opportunity to produce his defence in respect of this matter. He was fully alive to the matter in dispute and admitted that he had prepared the Indent No. 5 and made the entries complained of, but could not explain why the Deputy Collector (Jagir) put his signatures and totalled up the value of bonds on page 72 of the aforesaid Indent No. 5 and the two disputed entries at page 73 were not signed by the said Officer. 11. As regards the other question, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Union of India v.H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made the following observations:- It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is not right when he contends that in the circumstances of his case, the conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence whatever. It is a conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the face of the record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. In dealing with writ petition filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Art. 311 (2), the High Court under Art. 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. It is true that the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order, nevertheless the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by the public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence." 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Shree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 wherein Shah J., speaking for the Court observed as under:- "There is no warrant for the view expressed by the High Court that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of the misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied, and if that rule be not applied, the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not constituted in a proceedings 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 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. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner in consistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the inquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequancy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceedings for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution." 13. Similar observations have been made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The State of Madras v. G. Sundaram, AIR 1965 SC 1103 , wherein it has been held that - "A High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot sit in appeal over the findings of fact recorded by a competent Tribunal in a properly conduced departmental enquiry except when it be shown that the impugned findings were not supported by any evidence. It cannot consider adequacy of that evidence to sustain the charge." 14. The learned Additional Advocate General, in this context, relied upon the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Mulkh Raj, 1970 SLR 321 :- " The enquiry under Art. 311 is a domestic enquiry, and the Court is not concerned with the question whether on the evidence before the officer or authority passing the order against the civil servant, there was sufficient evidence to justify the order. The guarantee under Art. 311 is of the regularity of the enquiry. If the enquiry is not vitiated on the ground of any procedural irregularity the Court is not concerned to decide whether the evidence justified the order." 15. The principles laid down by their Lordships in the aforesaid cases are well settled. This Court, while dealing with a petition under 226 of the Constitution cannot go into the question of adequacy, sufficiency or reliability of the evidence before the departmental authorities but the only matters on which this Court can interfere are as to whether the authority was competent to hold the departmental inquiry or whether the rules of natural justice were violated, or the statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry have been violated or in case the conclusion arrived at by the departmental inquiry is based on no evidence whatsoever, or is wholly arbitrary or capricious so that it could be termed as perverse. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiry was the authority competent to make an inquiry against the petitioner. Further no violation of the principles of natural justice has been alleged. Moreover, I have held above that the petitioner was given an adequate opportunity to explain his conduct and to produce evidence in defence and thus the provisions of Sub rule (7) of Rule 16 of the Rules were also complied with. Now it is not for me to substitute my opinion in the matter as regards the merits of the case before the Inquiry Officer, but it is only to be seen as to whether there was no evidence at all on the record to justify the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, or that his finding was perverse. As mentioned above, it was proved by the evidence of Radha Mohan (P.W.2) and Laxman Singh (P.W.22) that there was no Jagir of Raghunath Dan and Ranchor Dan in village Mundiyar and the petitioner admitted that he was the author of the entire Indent No. 5 including the entries made at serial Nos. 2089 and 2090 on page 73 thereof. Further it appears from the Indent No. 5 that the Deputy Collector (Jagir) totalled up the amount or value of the bonds indented and affixed his signatures at the end of page 72. It cannot be held, in the absence of any Jagir of Raghunath Dan and Ranchor Dan in village Mundiyar, the Inquiry Officer was not justified in assuming that there could not have been any 'Khatauni' or final award in respect of the alleged Jagir of the aforesaid two persons in village Mundiyar and in coming to the conclusion that the entries made by the petitioner in respect of the alleged Jagir of the above mentioned two persons at page 73 of Indent No. 5 at Sl. No. 2089 and 2090 were without any basis and were false. If the petitioner thought that there was any Khatauni' or final award in respect of Ranchor Dan and Raghunath Dan regarding their alleged Jagir in village Mundiyar, he could have called for the same in his defence or could have led other evidence to show that the entries made by him on page 73 of Indent No. 5 were justified. If the petitioner thought that there was any Khatauni' or final award in respect of Ranchor Dan and Raghunath Dan regarding their alleged Jagir in village Mundiyar, he could have called for the same in his defence or could have led other evidence to show that the entries made by him on page 73 of Indent No. 5 were justified. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that on the basis of the evidence before him the Inquiry Officer could not have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of making false entries. In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not think that the present is a case of total absence of evidence in respect of the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and it cannot be held that the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer was wholly arbitrary or capricious. In this view of the matter it is nor permissible for me in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, which has been accepted by the State Government. 16. In the result, the writ petition has no merits and is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. *******