( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition under Art. 226 of the constitution, has sought for quashing the order passed by the 3rd respondent at ext. 'f' removing him from service under S. 23 (1) (b) (3) of Karnataka police Act, 1963 (to be hereinafter called the 'act') and the order passed by the 2nd respondent at Ext. 'g' rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the 3rd respondent. Further, he has sought for quashing the order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner as per Exhibit 'h'. ( 2 ) IN the disciplinary enquiry held against the petitioner by the 4th respondent the charge against the petitioner is as follows :" Gross misconduct in having beaten Smt Ratnamma and Smt susheelamma of 7th Cross, R. T. Street, Bangalore, on the night of 2-7-1973 at 1 a. m. and near Unity Buldg at about 3 p. m. on 3-7-1974 and also in having developed illegal intimacy with Smt susheelamma and on the night of 2-7-1973 demanded Rs. 50 from her. "the 4th respondent was appointed as specially empowered authority to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct. In brief the alleged misconduct is that the petitioner was working as a constable in the S. J. Park Police Station, Bangalore, on 2-7-73. He went to the house of Ratnamma and Susheelamma at R. T. Street, bangalore, at about 1 a. m. or 1-30 a. m. and demanded Rs. 50 from her with whom he had developed illicit intimacy. Further on 3-7-1973 at about 3 p. m. near Unity Buldg he beat Ratnamma since she called the petitioner as 'thief on the night of 2-7-73 when he visited their house, and thus displayed gross misconduct involving moral turpitude which was unbecoming of a member of the disciplined police force. ( 3 ) THIS enquiry is based upon a complaint dt. 3-7-1973 marked at ext. 'a' given by Susheelamma and Ratnamma, wherein Ratnamma the complainant alleged that the petitioner went to their house on 2-7-73 at 1 a. m. or 1-30 a. m. in Uniform and beat her mother and herself and committed theft of a trunk which contained articles worth of Rs. 2,000. 3-7-1973 marked at ext. 'a' given by Susheelamma and Ratnamma, wherein Ratnamma the complainant alleged that the petitioner went to their house on 2-7-73 at 1 a. m. or 1-30 a. m. in Uniform and beat her mother and herself and committed theft of a trunk which contained articles worth of Rs. 2,000. When the preliminary enquiry was entrusted to the Circle Inspector of Police P. R. Rajaputh, he secured Ratnamma and recorded her statement in which she has alleged that herself and Susheelamma were beaten near the Unity Buldgs at 3 p. m. on 3-7-74. The case for the department is that Ratnamma is the daughter of Susheelamma. She was brought up by her grand-mother from her childhood, as Susheelamma was discarded by her father. When she reached the marriageable age, her mother Susheelamma requested one Muniyallappa a police constable to find out a bride-groom in the police department. Muniyallappa, brought the petitioner as a bride-groom who is of the Barber Community. He was not approved. She was married to another person in Madivala. ( 4 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner had developed illicit intimacy with her mother Susheelamma. On the night of 2-7-73 it is alleged that the petitioner went to their house and committed theft of a trunk containing certain articles, besides assaulting them. He aslo beat them at about 3 p. m. on 3-7-73 on the grouse that he was called as 'thief. The 4th respondent held enquiry after furnishing the petitioner the articles of charge and copy of the complaint. In the inquiry he recorded the statements of five witnesses. Upon consideration of the evidence he gave a finding as follows : " I hold therefore that these two charges as proved involving moral turpitude of the delinquent. The other charges that he committed theft of PW. 1's articles and demanded Rs. 50 are not proved. " it is pertinent to note at this stage that the 4th respondent has held that the charges alleged in Ext. 'a' the complaint given by Ratnamma on 3-7-1973 have not been proved, but what has been held to be proved against the petitioner is the charge involving moral turpitude of the delinquent. ( 5 ) THE contentions of Mr. " it is pertinent to note at this stage that the 4th respondent has held that the charges alleged in Ext. 'a' the complaint given by Ratnamma on 3-7-1973 have not been proved, but what has been held to be proved against the petitioner is the charge involving moral turpitude of the delinquent. ( 5 ) THE contentions of Mr. Kadidal Manjappa, learned Advocate for the petitioner, are that the 4th respondent after summarising the evidence of each witness without assessing and appreciating their evidence has held that the charge involving moral turpitude of the petitioner was proyed. Secondly, he contended that the disciplinary authority under rule 6 (9) of the Mysore State Police (Disciplinary and Conduct) Rules, 1965 (to be hereinafter called the 'rules') has not considered the entire evidence and erroneously confirmed the finding of the 4th respondent. Thirdly, he contended that under Rule 13 of the Rules, the appellate authority has failed to consider whether the procedure prescribed in the Rules has been complied with and whether the findings are justified and whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate. Fourthly, he contended that this is a case of no evidence in support of the finding oh the charge involving moral turpitude of the petitioner and even taking the entire evidence of PW. 1, it cannot be said that illegal intimacy is proved against the petitioner. 'further, he urged that the petitioner who js an young man of 26 years has put in six years of service and belongs to Barber caste, a backward community and he has been punished on the basis of the uncorroborated evidence of Rathnamma and Susheelamma who are women of easy virtue and interested witnesses. ( 6 ) THE learned Govt Pleader, sought to support the impugned orders and urged that the procedure followed by the respondents is in accordance with the law and the enquiry held by the 4th respondent does not suffer from any infirmities as contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The questions which arise for consideration are : (1) Whether the finding given by the 4th respondent on the question of illegal intimacy is based upon proper appraisal of the evidence; and whether the finding on the charge involving moral turpitude is based upon no evidence. The questions which arise for consideration are : (1) Whether the finding given by the 4th respondent on the question of illegal intimacy is based upon proper appraisal of the evidence; and whether the finding on the charge involving moral turpitude is based upon no evidence. (2) Whether the orders passed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority are upon consideration of the entire evidence on record as required by the Rules; and (3) Whether the punishment imposed by them is justified in the case. ( 7 ) THE starting point to hold the preliminary enquiry against the petitioner by the Circle Inspector is the complaint made by Rathnamma to the 3rd respondent as per Ext. 'a'. It alleges theft of Rs. 2,000 and odd by the petitoner. It does not speak anything about the illicit intimacy of the petitioner with Susheelamma. But when the Circle Inspector of police, took up the preliminary enquiry, it transpired that susheelamma gave an explanation why the petitioner's illegal intimacy with her was not written in Ext. 'a' and the blame is put on the typist. On a reading of the statement of Susheelamma, recorded by the circle Inspector of Police, it is clear that she exaggerated the allegation against the petitioner in respect of the theft to involve him in a serious crime. But incidentally she has stated thus : " Nanna Maneyalli, oota adige praramba madi, nanage ihagali konda" then in the course of her statement before the Specially Empowered authority, she gives a statement that the petitioner and herself became friends and lived as man and wife and that she had been his mistress. Rathnamma, daughter of Susheelamma, who has been examined by the 4th respondent does not say a word about the illegal intimacy between the petitioner and Susheelamma in her examination-in-chief. But in the course of cross-examination she has stated that since she saw him sleeping with her mother she refused to marry him. But the reason given by Susheelamma as to why her daughter Rathnamma was not given in marriage to him is that the elders did not agree to give rathnamma in marriage to the petitioner. But in the course of cross-examination she has stated that since she saw him sleeping with her mother she refused to marry him. But the reason given by Susheelamma as to why her daughter Rathnamma was not given in marriage to him is that the elders did not agree to give rathnamma in marriage to the petitioner. The petitioner, in the course of his statement to the articles of charges supplied to him has stated that he was appointed as constable and through the intervention of some other constable he was invited by Susheelamma to stay in her house as she had no male members in the house, as he belonged to the community (Barber) of Susheelamma and as he found it difficult to stay in hotel with a meagre income. But sometime later he found that some other person was visiting her and he suspected that her conduct was not good, he left her house. He has further stated that when he was in their house, he was paying his salary for the maintenance and since that payment wa,s stopped by him and when he lived separately, the mother and the daughter became angry and foisted the case of illicit intimacy. ( 8 ) ON a careful perusal of the minutes of report prepared by the 4th respondent after the enquiry, there is no critical appraisal of the evidence on record for reaching the- conclusion that the illicit intimacy between the petitioner and Susheelamma is proved. What the 4th respondent has done is that he has merely copied the evidence of all witnesses and in the last para of the findings, he has stated thus :" From the evidence of PWs. 1 and 4 it is clearly established that the delinquent did develop illicit intimacy with PW. 1, started living with her and shared bed with her and that intimacy slowly diminished when PW. 1 was not able to maintain him with her meagre earning as domestic servant and their feelings got strained and culminated in a quarrel that took place between him and PW. 1 and PW. 4 on the public road near George Oakes Buildg and that pw. 2 has intervened and separated them is also proved to the hilt. I hold therefore that these two charges as proved involving moral turpitude of the delinquent. The other charges that he committed theft of PW. 1 and PW. 4 on the public road near George Oakes Buildg and that pw. 2 has intervened and separated them is also proved to the hilt. I hold therefore that these two charges as proved involving moral turpitude of the delinquent. The other charges that he committed theft of PW. 1's articles and demanded Es. 50 are not proved. " ( 9 ) THIS finding recorded, by the 4th respondent is clearly on surmises without the critical appraisal of the evidence of PWs. 1 and 4. PW. 4 never stated in her statement that the petitioner developed illicit intimacy with PW. 1. Further, PW. 1 also has stated in her statement recorded by the Circle Inspector, merely the word "thagali konda" that means "attached" to her and it is only in the course of her examination before the 4th respondent, she improved her version that they became friends and lived as husband and wife and that she was his mistress. ( 10 ) THE 4th respondent has failed to give any reason for the improved version at subsequent stages against the petitioner before accepting her evidence as true. Therefore, his finding is the result of surmises and not as a result of critical examination of the evidence given by her. The 4th respondent has also failed to take notice that PW. 4 Rathnamma, did not mention anything about the intimacy in her examination-in- chief, but casually gave a reason why she did not want to marry the petitioner. Further the 4th respondent has completely ignored the defence statement of the petitioner narrating the circumstances which goaded him to take shelter and food in the house of Susheelamma and also the reason why he left her house. This is a serious infirmity in the report of the 4th respondent resulting in total non-consideration of the case stated by the petitioner. It was open to him either to accept or to reject it. But no reference at all is made in this case. Thus the enquiry report and the findings given therein are one-sided having totally ignored the case of the petitioner, which he put forth in his defence and greatly prejudiced the case of the petitioner. ( 11 ) FURTHER the 4th respondent appears to have taken the statement of (Susheelamma that the petitioner was demanding his maintenance out of the meagre income of Susheelamma for granted. ( 11 ) FURTHER the 4th respondent appears to have taken the statement of (Susheelamma that the petitioner was demanding his maintenance out of the meagre income of Susheelamma for granted. But no reference is made, as to his own income by way of salary as a constable. The written statement of the petitioner clearly goes to show that he was maintaining them out of his salary. Therefore, the question of Susheelamma maintaining him out of her meagre income is a myth and strained feelings betweeen the petitioner and Susheelamma on this ground is a concoction. But, on the other hand, there is every reason for these ladies to nurse ill-will against the petitioner who was a constable drawing certain salary and who was paying for their maintenance and later deprived them of that benefit by living separately. The 4th respondent has taken an arbitrary and unreasonable view of the matter solely to punish the petitioner. ( 12 ) FURTHER the 4th respondent has totally ignored the material circumstance in the case of these two ladies before accepting their evidence as true. PWs. 1 and 4 are women of easy virtue. PW. 1 had abandoned her husband and came to Bangalore and living with her daughter and pw. 4 even after the marriage had abandoned her husband and was living with her mother. The 4th Respt has not given any reason as to why he was accepting the evidence of such women on the alleged illegal intimacy with Susheelamma, especially when no such report was made to the Police on the first occasion when they lodged their complaint exhibit 'a'. ( 13 ) IT is relevant to point out that Rathnamma in her complaint at ext. 'a' produced in this writ petition has alleged serious offence like robbery. They have given a lengthy statement with regard to the alleged offence against the petitioner. The 4th respondent found that their evidence is unacceptable on the question of robbery and has recorded a negative finding. But curiously enough, the 4th respondent having rejected their evidence with regard to the offence alleged against the petitioner has accepted the improved and belated versions of PWs. 1 and 4 in support of the finding that the petitioner had illicit intimacy. The supreme Court in State of A. P. v. Sri Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 . But curiously enough, the 4th respondent having rejected their evidence with regard to the offence alleged against the petitioner has accepted the improved and belated versions of PWs. 1 and 4 in support of the finding that the petitioner had illicit intimacy. The supreme Court in State of A. P. v. Sri Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 . has ruled that 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 Art. 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly intefere where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived alt that conclusion, or on similar grounds. ( 14 ) FURTHER the Supreme Court in State of A. P. v. Chitra Venkat Rao, AIR 1975 SC 2151 . laid down that adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Further, when the Tribunal gave reasons for its conclusion, it is not possible for the High Court to say that no reasonable person could have arrived at these conclusions. As already pointed out the enquiry officer has not assigned any reason as to why he is accepting the evidence of PWs. 1 and 4 in spite of the fact that on the showing of the deparement itself they had made a false charge of robbery against the petitioner. He has also not given any reason as to why he believed that part of the evidence which related to illicit intimacy between the petitioner and Susheelamma. ( 15 ) THE conclusion reached by the 4th respondent is wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at the conclusion. Thus the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the findings of the 4th respondent on the charge of misconduct has been vitiated and it cannot be sustained. Thus the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the findings of the 4th respondent on the charge of misconduct has been vitiated and it cannot be sustained. The 3rd respondent, the Specially Empowered Authority, has failed to consider the entire evidence while affirming the findings given by the 4th respondent. Further he has failed to consider whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner is excessive or adequate. In the appeal the 2nd respondent has no doubt referred to the points raised on behalf of the petitioner, but the appellate order also suffers from similar infirmities as those of the 3rd and 4th respondents. It is true, as observed by the 2nd respondent that a police officer should maintain integrity of the highest order and keep his private life scrupulously clean and develop self-restraint and worthy of the police force and he should not become a law-breaker. But the evidence on record does not reasonably support this observation. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 4 to say the least is untruthful and the petitioner cannot be punished on the basis of untruthful evidence. When the enquiring officer's findings are wholly vitiated for the reason seated above, the subsequent confirmation of those findings by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority cannot be sustained. Therefore the entire enquiry from its inception is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. The facts and circumstances of the case are not such that any fresh enquiry against the petitioner is necessary. Hence, it is directed that no fresh enquiry shall be held against the petitioner and he shall be restored to the position which he was holding at the time of dismissal, but for the impugned order and he shall be given all monetary and other benefits to which he is entitled. Therefore, issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents as prayed for in this writ petition. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. --- *** --- .