Judgment : In this Rule the petitioner, a Police Officer in Calcutta Police, challenges a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Commissioner of Police against him as also the proposal of his dismissal as being vitiated by bias. 2. The petitioner's case is that he joined the Calcutta Police organisation in 1950, and was promoted to the post of Inspector in 1967. He performed duties as the Officer-in-Charge of Jorabagan, Cossipore and Entally Police Stations with credit in difficult times and received several awards for meritorious service. In 1968 on certain complaints of corruption against him, an investigation was made by the Vigilance Commission. The enquiry related to the petitioner's assets acquired during the course of his service and was conducted for the period from August 17, 1970 to February 22, 1973. During investigation the petitioner as also his wife, also a police Officer at the material time, and his father-in-law appeared before the Inspector of the Vigilance Commission and made statements which were duly recorded. 3. Long after the enquiry, the petitioner received a charge sheet dated December 11, 1973 with a statement of allegations in support of the charges issued by the Commissioner of Police. The charges related (1) to the acquisition of bank balance of Rs. 1200/- unexplained and thus disproportionate to the petitioner's known source of income; (2) acquisition of bank balance of Rs. 4001/- disproportionate to the petitioner's known source of income; (3) acqusition of agricultural lands. one plot in Behala and 3 plots in Murshidabad in the name of his wife without sanction of the appointing authority and (4) acceptance of cash gift of Rs. 1200/- in the name of the petitioner's wife from his father-in-law without prior sanction; charges (3) and (4) being in violation Rules 15(2) and 10 of the West Bengal Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959. The petitioner was asked to put in his defence, under Clause (2) of Article 311 and Rule 9 of Schedule II of the Calcutta Suburban Police (Subordinate Rank, Recruitment Conditions of Service and Discipline) Rules, 1962, to Mr. R. Banerjee, West Bengal Higher Judicial Service, Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, who had been appointed the Enquirying Officer to hold the enquiry into the aforesaid charges. The petitioner was offered inspection with right to take copies of documents specified in the statement of allegations. 4. The petitioner filed his statement of defence on May 31, 1974. R. Banerjee, West Bengal Higher Judicial Service, Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, who had been appointed the Enquirying Officer to hold the enquiry into the aforesaid charges. The petitioner was offered inspection with right to take copies of documents specified in the statement of allegations. 4. The petitioner filed his statement of defence on May 31, 1974. In regard to charge (1) it was stated that he made savings of amount out of his salary and allowances. As to charge (2) it was said the amount was deposited by the wife by sale of her ornaments and the ornaments and the sale were disclosed in his annual statements of assets. As to charge (3) it was said that he was not aware of the purchases made by his wife who disclosed such acquisitions long after completion of dealings. In respect of charge (4) the gift from the father-in-law was in fact repayment of the amounts given by his wife to her father. 5. The Enquirying Officer found on evidence adduced before him that in regard to charge (1) that the bank balance of Rs. 1000/- was not satisfactorily explained. The charge (2) was proved while charges (3) and (4) were also proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the enquiry report and on perusal of the evidence the Commissioner gave the petitioner benefit of doubt in regard to charge (1) but found charges (2), (3) and (4) proved against him. He accordingly by order dated November 28, 1974 provisionally proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service and called upon the petitioner to show cause against the proposed punishment. 6. The petitioner at this stage obtained this Rule on December 13, 1974 and obtained a stay of further proceeding which is still continuing. The rule, as it appears has not been opposed on behalf of the respondents at the time of hearing of the Rule nor any affidavit-in-opposition has been filed. 7. Mr. Ghosh appearing for the petitioner contended that the entire proceeding was vitiated by bias of the Commissioner against the petitioner. He drew my attention to the wording of the charges which clearly indicated the closed mind of the Commissioner against the petitioner. 7. Mr. Ghosh appearing for the petitioner contended that the entire proceeding was vitiated by bias of the Commissioner against the petitioner. He drew my attention to the wording of the charges which clearly indicated the closed mind of the Commissioner against the petitioner. He cited extracts as quoted below : "'Whereas it has been made to appear to the undersigned that Departmental proceedings should be drawn up against" the petitioner; as to charges(1) and(2), observations as to bank balances, as "not satisfactorily explained" as the petitioner "failed to account for satisfactorily"-all indicated the closed mind of the Disciplinary Authority. Further the allegations in support of charges were clearly indicative of the bias as will be clear from the following extracts. The explanation for bank balance in charge (2) "cannot to accepted and there is every reason to believe that in order to explain his ill-gotten money, the Officer has invented the story of sale of ornaments". As to charge (3), the petitioner's case that the properties were acquired by his wife without his knowledge "was unbelievable". To crown all, it is submitted, that the statement of allegations was signed by the Commissioner, thus as his own statement. All these clearly indicated his bias against the petitioner, which has vitiated the proceeding, as the judge has become the prosecutor. 8. As to the petitioner's contention on the charges, it does not appear that the same by themselves indicate any bias of the Commissioner against the petitioner. The charges should merely indicate, on the statement of allegations, the lapses in the conduct of Government Servant which he is to explain satisfactorily. Words "not satisfactorily explained" or commission of offence having been "made to appear" after a preliminary enquiry do not by themselves indicate any closed mind on part of the disciplinary authority. 9. The bias in disciplinary proceedings must be a real possibility as to a reasonable mind and not merely an apprehension, suspicion or surmise based on no material worth consideration. The charges which are required to be answered by the Government Servant must rest on some preliminary investigation and are based on information obtained in course such enquiry. The facts revealed in such enquiry and the allegations thereon must also obviously indicate some conduct of the Government servant which is violative of the conduct rules of service or a conduct unbecoming a Government Servant for which he is charged. The facts revealed in such enquiry and the allegations thereon must also obviously indicate some conduct of the Government servant which is violative of the conduct rules of service or a conduct unbecoming a Government Servant for which he is charged. Mere indication of the offence in the charge with a citation of facts and allegations thereon on which such charge is based accordingly will not by itself and without more indicate any bias of the disciplinary authority against the Government Servant. There must thus be a real likelihood of bias as to a reasonable man in the attending circumstances which will warrant interference by the Court in this jurisdiction. 10. In the charges against the petitioner there is no such indication or statement which can be construed as a real likelihood of bias against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The statement of allegations also is not a statement by such authority himself as it is a report of the preliminary enquiry held against the petitioner. It is also to be noted, in fairness to the petitioner, that no personal animus or animosity of the disciplinary authority against the petitioner has been alleged or pleaded in this case. It may also be noted that at no stage of the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner 'had any feeling of bias against him and no objection was ever taken at any stage in respect thereof though Mr. Ghosh contends that it is never too late to take the point, a proposition difficult to accept. It is accordingly not possible to hold that there was any real likelihood of bias in this facts of this case. 11. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the enquiry officer was appointed as early as or August 10, 1973 when charges against the petitioner were yet to be framed. The preliminary investigation started earlier and the order itself indicated that the disciplinary proceeding was being drawn against the petitioner and a member of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Such appointment also indicated that the proceeding was to be conducted by an experienced Judicial Officer unconnected with the department for ensuring fair trial. 12. Mr. Ghosh also contended that the findings are unwarranted and wrong on facts on misappreciation of the evidence adduced by the petitioner which should have been accepted. Such appointment also indicated that the proceeding was to be conducted by an experienced Judicial Officer unconnected with the department for ensuring fair trial. 12. Mr. Ghosh also contended that the findings are unwarranted and wrong on facts on misappreciation of the evidence adduced by the petitioner which should have been accepted. This Court in this jurisdiction does not sit as a court of appeal and it is not a case of finding which is perverse or based on extraneous facts or non application of mind by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority, when there is evidence on record on which another enquirying officer or disciplinary authority might have taken a different view and no procedural defect has been alleged. 13. A long time has passed since the provisional proposal for dismissal was issued. The petitioner will be entitled to represent before the disciplinary authority all the contentions he seeks to make on the basis of the evidence adduced during such enquiry, and fortunately for him, obviously before another holder of the office of the Commissioner of Police as the disciplinary authority. 14. The rule in the circumstances fails and is discharged, without any order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated.