( 1 ) PETITIONER was an employee of respondent-Chamundi Machine Tools Limited, Mysore ('company' for short ). By an order made by Board of Directors of the company, which was communicated vide their letter No. CMT/ado/1996-97, dated 19-4-1996, the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authorigy came to be confirmed, as a result of which the aggrieved employee has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia contending that the dismissal order passed by Disciplinary Authorigy and confirmed in the appeal by the board of Directors is vitiated and illegal. ( 2 ) FACTS in brief are: petitioner had joined the services of respondent-company in the year 1980 as a Technician trainee. By subsequent orders, petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant Engineer (Supervisor ). ( 3 ) WHILE working as Supervisor in the respondent-company, petitioner was served with a charge-memo dated 16-12-1994, containing charges of misconduct as supervisor of the company. The charge-sheet was signed by one Sri M. Kumaraswamy, who was working in the company in the capacity of Administrative Officer. To inquire into allegations made in the memo, he also appointed one Sri B. G. Prasad, a Practising Advocate at Mysore as the enquiry officer. Petitioner by his explanation in writing dated 24-12-1994 denied the allegations made in the charge-memo and had also taken up several objections in regard to the procedure adopted by the Administrative Officer while initiating the enquiry proceedings. Notwithstanding these objections, the enquiry officer completed the inquiry proceedings against the charge-sheeted employee and submitted his report together with the records of the enquiry proceedings and other documents to the Administrative Officer. According to the enquiry officer, Charges 1 to 3 were held to be proved and Charges 4 and 5 are not proved. The Administrative Officer, after issuing second show-cause notice and after receiving the reply thereto and after accepting the report of the enquiry officer has passed an order dated 6-6-1995, dismissing the petitioner from services of the respondent-company in terms of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the company. Petitioner had challenged the said order of dismissal before the Board of Directors of the company but without any success. It is these orders, which are called in question by the charge-sheeted officer, being aggrieved by the same. Petitioner had challenged the said order of dismissal before the Board of Directors of the company but without any success. It is these orders, which are called in question by the charge-sheeted officer, being aggrieved by the same. ( 4 ) NUMEROUS grounds have been urged in support of the prayer for quashing the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner but what has been really pressed into service at the time of hearing of the petition is that the appointment of Sri B. G, Prasad, Advocate, as an enquiry officer is opposed to Clause 20. 2 of Conduct and Discipline Rules, the charge-sheet is framed and the order of dismissal is passed by Administrative Officer, who is neither the competent authority or the appointing authority, the findings of the enquiry officer is wholly perverse, since it is not based on the evidence available on record and lastly the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated for the reason that the inquiry officer did not afford an opportunity to the charge-sheeted employee to lead evidence in support of his defence. It was therefore contended that the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Authorigy basing on perverse finding of the enquiry officer requires to be set aside. ( 5 ) PER contra, Sri Somashekar, learned Counsel for respondent-company, justify the impugned orders of both the Disciplinary Authorigy and the Board of Directors. ( 6 ) HAVING carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel, I am of the view that though petitioner has raised several contentions in support of his case, only two issues requires to be considered and decided by this Court. They are, whether the findings of the enquiry officer is perverse and based on mere assumptions and presumptions and whether the proceedings of the enquiry officer is in violation of principle of natural justice. The other issues raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, are no more debatable in view of the law declared by this Court as well as Apex Court. ( 7 ) THE first issue that requires to be considered and decided is whether the charge-sheeted employee got adequate opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry proceedings. This in my view is always a question of fact. ( 8 ) IN the present case the inquiry into the charges alleged against the charge-sheeted employee commenced only on 11-1-1995 by the enquiry officer. This in my view is always a question of fact. ( 8 ) IN the present case the inquiry into the charges alleged against the charge-sheeted employee commenced only on 11-1-1995 by the enquiry officer. Management in support of the charges examined one Sri Ramashesh, Production Manager, in the Company. The examination-in-chief and cross-examination of this witness was concluded only on 10-3-1995. On that day, the defence representative of the delinquent requested for time to lead evidence of the delinquent and his witness on the ground that he was not in a position to concentrate with the enquiry proceedings in view of the heavy work in the company and also due to heavy responsibility as the financial year is coming to an end. The enquiry officer though was not convinced with the grounds of adjournment, postpones the case to 23-3-1995 on the request made by the defence representative, this is what the enquiry officer states: "however, I am not convinced by the grounds put forth by the defence. Though I have granted an adjournment, I have directed them to lead evidence by duly preparing themselves on 21-3-1995 in the factory premises". ( 9 ) AGAIN on 21-3-1995, the defence representative sought for time on the ground that he has not made any preparation to lead evidence and that he needs time to concentrate on the subject and prepare himself to lead evidence. Since he is busy with batch of workers working under him to complete the assignments and he had also assured the enquiry officer that after 31-3-1995 he would not seek any adjournment and he would participate and co-operate in concluding the proceedings. This reasonable request of the defence representative had been rejected by the enquiry officer by his order dated 21-3-1995. It reads as under: "as ruled by me on 10-3-1995, I am not convinced by the stand taken by the defence. Accordingly I stick to my ruling dated 10-3-1995 and order as under: it is seen that the work inside the factory should not be hampered to proceed with the enquiry. The inquiry agency is an independent body. Though the defence Counsel has asked time till 31-3-1995, I was constrained to set it aside on 10-3-1995. I do not see any valid reasons, as the reasons are the same put forth by the defence on 10-3-1995. Therefore, I am constrained to conclude the proceedings". The inquiry agency is an independent body. Though the defence Counsel has asked time till 31-3-1995, I was constrained to set it aside on 10-3-1995. I do not see any valid reasons, as the reasons are the same put forth by the defence on 10-3-1995. Therefore, I am constrained to conclude the proceedings". ( 10 ) HAVING noticed what transpired on two dates namely 10-3-1995 and 21-3-1995, I am of the opinion that there is no adequate justification for the enquiry officer to refuse to allow the reasonable request of the defence representative. After all he was asking for a date beyond 31-3-1995 on the ground that he was hard pressed for time to concentrate with the enquiry proceedings in view of his official responsibilities in the company. The result of the refusal to adjourn the case has deprived the charge-sheeted officer to defend himself of the serious accusations made in the charge-memo. Therefore the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer is in violation of rules of natural justice and this unjustified refusal necessarily prejudice the case of the charge-sheeted officer. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v C. S. Sharma, was pleased to observe that no enquiry can be said to be properly conducted when the defence of the officer is either refused or ruled out. In view of all this it can safely be said the enquiry proceedings are vitiated. ( 11 ) NOW coming to the other important issue canvassed by the learned Counsel for petitioner, a look at the charge-memo, the evidence recorded and the findings of the enquiry officer is absolutely necessary. In the charge-memo that was served on the petitioner, there were five charges. They are the following: "1. You have failed to discharge your responsibilities in that you have failed to issue the work orders in time as shown hereunder and you were found deliberately withholding the work orders as under thereby causing delay in executing the work. Sl. D. V. No. and date Work Order No. and no. date 1. T/180/15-9-1994 270/54-01/29-9-1994 2. T/181/15-9-1994 271/54-01/30-9-1994 3. T/205/26-9-1994 not issued 4. T/211/30-9-1994 416/54-01/25-10-1994 5. T/213/1-10-1994 not issued 6. T/215/5-10-1994 416/54-01/25-10-1994 7. T/218/7-10-1994 not issued 8. T/232/18-10-1994 not issued 9. T/235/20-10-1994 not issued 10. T/237/20-10-1994 not issued 11. T/248/25-10-1994 not issued ( 12 ) T/258/29-10-1994 not issued 2. Sl. D. V. No. and date Work Order No. and no. date 1. T/180/15-9-1994 270/54-01/29-9-1994 2. T/181/15-9-1994 271/54-01/30-9-1994 3. T/205/26-9-1994 not issued 4. T/211/30-9-1994 416/54-01/25-10-1994 5. T/213/1-10-1994 not issued 6. T/215/5-10-1994 416/54-01/25-10-1994 7. T/218/7-10-1994 not issued 8. T/232/18-10-1994 not issued 9. T/235/20-10-1994 not issued 10. T/237/20-10-1994 not issued 11. T/248/25-10-1994 not issued ( 12 ) T/258/29-10-1994 not issued 2. You are in the habit of behaving arrogantly with your superiors and on 12-11-1994 at about 4. 20 p. m. when you were called upon to meet the Managing Director along with the production-in-charge, you have refused to do so but you have retorted by stating that securing the presence of the production-in-charge should be done through the attender. Further, you have retorted by saying that you are not a computer to do everything. 3. That on 28-6-1994, at about 4. 10 p. m. you have barged into the chambers of the Managing director by collecting all the supervisors and threatened the Managing Director that you would go to 'vidhana Soudha' in order to initiate action against the Managing Director. 4. That on 16-8-1994, the HMT Kalamassery feed box drawings/operation layouts were given to you for the acts of studying and identifying special jigs/toolings etc. However, you deliberately failed to take up the matter and ignored the instructions and thereby caused 4 days production loss to the Company as the finish boring machine was to be kept waiting for re-work of one particular boring bar. 5. That you are in the habit of absenting yourself without applying for leave and also you are in the habit of reporting late for duty. Your record discloses your unauthorised absence and late entry for work". 12. In support of these charges, Management had examined only one witness. The enquiry officer has held that charges 1 to 3 are proved and fully established and the other two charges are held to be not proved. The learned Counsel contends that in the absence of any evidence on record and on mere assumptions and presumptions, the enquiry officer could not have come to the conclusion that charge-sheeted officer is guilty of charges 1 to 3. Therefore, it is contended that the findings of the enquiry officer is wholly perverse and basing on such perverse finding, the Disciplinary Authority could not have imposed any punishment. Therefore, it is contended that the findings of the enquiry officer is wholly perverse and basing on such perverse finding, the Disciplinary Authority could not have imposed any punishment. However, Sri Somashekar, learned Counsel for respondents submits that this Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer, the decision of Disciplinary and Appellate Authority. In view of this assertion, the question that requires to be considered and decided is whether this Court exercising its writ jurisdiction can interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer and Disciplinary Authority. Before I consider the aforesaid issue in my opinion it is useful to notice the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v S. Sree Rama Rao. In the said decision the court was pleased to observe: "the High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from recalling a bad 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 fact 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 enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy 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 ) ON the question the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution with the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority, the Apex Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi v Union of India , was pleased to observe as under: "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 a 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 findings must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of 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 Authorigy 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 re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at the own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry of where the conclusion or finding reached by the Disciplinary Authorigy 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". (emphasis supplied) ( 14 ) KEEPING in view the principles laid down in the above decisions of Apex Court, let me now examine the fact situation in the present case. Respondents allege in their charge-memo that the delinquent has failed to discharge his responsibility, in that he has failed to issue certain work orders, that he is in the habit of behaving arrogantly with his superiors and that on 26-6-1994 at 4. 10 p. m. he has barged into the chambers of the Managing Director by collecting all the supervisors and threatened the Managing Director that he would go to Vidhana Soudha in order to initiate action against the Managing Director. 10 p. m. he has barged into the chambers of the Managing Director by collecting all the supervisors and threatened the Managing Director that he would go to Vidhana Soudha in order to initiate action against the Managing Director. The enquiry officer in his report and the findings clearly observes that the work orders are issued by the Planning Manager and the delinquent only verifies and initials them, but still conies to the conclusion that the 1st charge is proved. Secondly, the only witness that was examined by the Management clearly admits that he was not in the spot when the so-called incident of delinquent barging into the chambers of managing Director and threatening him that he would go to 'vidhana Soudha' to initiate action against him and he does not even state in the evidence he had heard all this from other officer. On these charges the enquiry officer only says: "charge Nos. two and three except for an half-hearted attempt by the defence, that the witness was not in the chamber of Managing Director, no further proving was taken by the defence. Hence, the evidence of the witness in support of these charges has not at all been tested and it has remained intact". ( 15 ) A reading of the evidence of the Management witness and even the finding of the enquiry officer clearly goes to show that the witness has not supported the case of the Management. In spite of it, the enquiry officer holds that the charge-sheeted officer is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge-memo. In that view of the matter the only inference that can be drawn is that the findings of the enquiry officer is not only perverse since it is not based on evidence on record. In such a situation, this Court can definitely interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 16 ) THE Disciplinary Authority after receipt of the finding of the enquiry officer without objectively considering the case on hand and without properly appreciating the evidence on record could not have mechanically concurred with the findings. In that view of the matter, the orders framed by Disciplinary Authority is vitiated. ( 16 ) THE Disciplinary Authority after receipt of the finding of the enquiry officer without objectively considering the case on hand and without properly appreciating the evidence on record could not have mechanically concurred with the findings. In that view of the matter, the orders framed by Disciplinary Authority is vitiated. When all these aspects had been pointed out to the Appellate Authority by the charge-sheeted officer, without adverting to any one of the grounds urged in the memorandum, mechanically proceeds to confirm the orders of the disciplinary Authority, while rejecting the appeal of the aggrieved person. ( 17 ) IN the result, petition succeeds. Accordingly it is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned orders of the Appellate Authority dated 19-4-1996 confirming the orders of the disciplinary Authority dated 6-6-1995 are set aside. A direction is issued to the respondent-company to reinstate the petitioner into service within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order. Since petitioner has not worked from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement, he is not entitled for full backwages. Therefore, it is ordered for payment of 50% backwages and all the other service benefits. (petitioner has also filed a memo to accept 50% of backwages. That memo is also placed on record ). Liberty is reserved to the respondent-company to continue with the enquiry from the stage the defects are noticed by this court if they so desire. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.