Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1163 (ALL)

RAMESHWAR v. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

2004-05-28

ASHOK BHUSHAN

body2004
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Heard Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Sri Satya Prakash, Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3/4th October, 1996 dismissing the petitioner from service, order dated 9th January, 1996 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order dated 28th September, 1998 rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner. Other consequential reliefs have also been sought. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are; petitioner had been working as Messenger in Food Corporation of India since 1971 and was posted at the relevant time under the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Kanpur. A memo dated 27th June, 1985 was issued to the petitioner informing him that a disciplinary enquiry is proposed against him under Regulation 58 of U. P. Food Corporation (Staff Regulations), 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations ). Along with the memo statement of articles of charges framed against the petitioner was sent as Annexure-I and statement of imputation, misconduct, misbehaviour in support of articles of charges was sent as Annexure-Il. Six charges were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner after receiving the charge-sheet wrote a letter that charges are in English hence he be given a Hindi translation of the charge. The petitioner was informed to obtain Hindi translation from Assistant Manager. The petitioner after receiving the Hindi translation submitted his reply to the charge-sheet vide letter dated 23rd November, 1985 copy of which has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The Enquiry Officer was appointed who fixed date for enquiry. Firstly 15th February, 1986 was fixed in the enquiry. The petitioner did not appear and raised objection to enquiry at Naini and asked to conduct enquiry at Chandari. Thereafter 25th February, 1986 was fixed on which date the petitioner did not appear. The petitioner sent an application dated 24th February, 1986 raising certain objections. A representation was filed by the petitioner dated 5th March, 1986 praying that place of enquiry be shifted other than Naini where the petitioner feels danger to his life. The District Manager advised the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry at Chandari or at District Office, Kanpur. The petitioner sent an application dated 24th February, 1986 raising certain objections. A representation was filed by the petitioner dated 5th March, 1986 praying that place of enquiry be shifted other than Naini where the petitioner feels danger to his life. The District Manager advised the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry at Chandari or at District Office, Kanpur. The next date of enquiry was fixed as 19th May, 1986 at Kanpur on which date the petitioner stated that he has already informed the District Office, Kanpur that the enquiry be conducted by Senior Regional Manager Office, Lucknow only. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. Again 23rd June, 1986 was fixed in the District Office, Kanpur intimating the petitioner that if he did not turn up on this date ex-parte hearing will be made as per provision made in Regulations. Again on 23rd June, 1986 the petitioner did not turn up. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and thereafter submitted enquiry report dated 31st July, 1986 holding all the charges proved except Charge No. 3. The District Manager, Kanpur to whom the enquiry report was sent wrote to the Senior Regional Manager that since the petitioner has made an attempt on the life of the District Manager, he may feel bias, hence the order be passed by the higher authority. The order dated 3rd/4th October, 1986 was passed by Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Lucknow dismissing the petitioner from service. Against the order passed by Regional Manager dismissing the petitioner, the petitioner claimed to have filed an appeal before the Managing Director. The petitioner also filed Writ Petition No. 562 of 1987 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17th May, 1995 directing the Managing Director to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter claimed to have filed a review petition before the Board of Directors. The petitioner again filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 21746 of 1998 challenging the decision of the appellate Court. This Court vide its order dated 10th July, 1998 directed the review petition to be disposed of within two months. The review petition was rejected by the order dated 28th September, 1998, communicated by Chairman, Food Corporation of India. This writ petition has been filed against the aforesaid three orders. 4. This Court vide its order dated 10th July, 1998 directed the review petition to be disposed of within two months. The review petition was rejected by the order dated 28th September, 1998, communicated by Chairman, Food Corporation of India. This writ petition has been filed against the aforesaid three orders. 4. Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the writ petition, raised following submissions: (i) Charges against the petitioner were completely vague on which no disciplinary proceedings could have been started. (ii) Documents demanded by the petitioner in the enquiry were not supplied to the petitioner, hence the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice vitiating the dismissal order. (iii) In the disciplinary enquiry no witness was produced by the employers to prove the charges against the petitioner and without producing any witness to prove the charges, there was no evidence in the enquiry on which dismissal order could be passed. The documents relied by the department in the charge-sheet could also not have been relied since no one appeared in the enquiry to prove the documents. (iv) Petitioners request for change of Enquiry Officer ought to have been accepted by the disciplinary authority. (v) No dates having been fixed in the enquiry, the enquiry has not been held and the punishment order is vitiated. 5. Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondents refuting the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner were fully substantiated by the documents which were mentioned in the charge-sheet itself. It was not necessary for the department to lead oral evidence to prove the charges when the charges stood substantiated by the documents itself. He further contended that no examination of any witness was inconsequential since the documents, which were nothing but letters, complaints and memos written in the official course of business, were fully reliable. It was contended that petitioner was given full opportunity to inspect the documents but the petitioner deliberately avoided to appear in the enquiry. 6. The counsel for both the parties have placed reliance on various citations which shall be referred to while considering the submissions in detail. 7. I have considered the submission raised by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first submission raised by counsel for the petitioner is that charges are vague. 6. The counsel for both the parties have placed reliance on various citations which shall be referred to while considering the submissions in detail. 7. I have considered the submission raised by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The first submission raised by counsel for the petitioner is that charges are vague. The petitioner himself has filed memo dated 27th June, 1985 as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The said memo contains two annexures, Annexure-I and Annexure-II. Annexure-I is statement of articles of charges, which contains following six charges : "article-I : The said Sri Rameshwar, Messenger, is in the habit of wilfully neglecting his duties/absenting from duty without prior permission and to obstruct action/report against him, he misbehaves/makes false complaints against the complainant, as has been evident during his posting at Chhibramau during 1976 and at Etawah, during 1978. ARTICLE-II : The said Sh. Rameshwar, Messenger, is habitual of ill behaviour, abusing and manhandling/attempt to manhandling with his colleagues and officers, as is evident by his behaviour on 18-10-78 and 29-6-79 with A,m. /admn) and A. M. (Stg.) respectively. ARTICLE-III : The said Sh. Rameshwar, Messenger, on 12-10-78, demanded Rupees one hundred on kinfe point from Sri Mani Ram, D/opt. , FSD Chandari, his father, while the latter on duty, had come to take tea in a hotel. The said Sri Rameshwar also fired through fire arm on Rakeh II, Messenger, FSD, Chandari, on 31-1-85 at 7. 00 p. m. since Sri Rakesh did not give contribution of Rs. 5-00 demanded by him. He has thus contravened regulation 31, 32 and 32-A (19) & 32-A (31 ). ARTICLE IV : The said Sri Rameshwar, Messenger on 26-5-79, wrote undesirable words on the wall of Depot Office, Chandari, and thus contravened regulation 31, 32, 32-A (19) & 32-A (31) of FCI Staff Regulation, 1971. ARTICLE V : The said Sri Rameshwar, Messenger, on 12-5-84 tore official records and burned the same. He also made advance signature on Watchman duty register for his duty on 25-12-85 and thus contravened regulation 31, 32 of FCI staff regulation, 1971. ARTICLE VI : The said Sri Rameshwar, Messenger, made false complaints to various State Govts. , Central Govt. and FCI officers directly regarding misappropriation of four trucks of wheat receipt at FSD Chandari, on 13-5-84. He also made advance signature on Watchman duty register for his duty on 25-12-85 and thus contravened regulation 31, 32 of FCI staff regulation, 1971. ARTICLE VI : The said Sri Rameshwar, Messenger, made false complaints to various State Govts. , Central Govt. and FCI officers directly regarding misappropriation of four trucks of wheat receipt at FSD Chandari, on 13-5-84. " Annexure-II to the memo is statement of imputation of misconduct, misbehaviour in support of articles of charges framed against the petitioner. Annexure-II contains statement of charges giving details of the incidents, letters and complaints. To take only one example, in support of Article-I, following was mentioned in Annexure-II: "article-I : The said Sh. Rameshwar, Messenger, is in the habit of wilfully neglecting duties/absconding from duty, without prior permission and to obstruct action/report against him. He misbehaves/makes false complaints against complainant. The said Sri Rameshwar, while posted as Messenger, at FSD, Chhibramau during, June, 76 had absented himself from duty from 16-6-76 to 19-6-76,he came to Depot on 20-6-76 and forcibly signed on attendance register and again absconded from duty. The said Sri Rameshwar, came to know that a report against his misconduct has been made by Depot Incharge, vide his letter No. F. C. I. /c. B. R. /confidential/75-76/499 dated 3-6-76 to District Manager, FCI, Kanpur, he filed an application dated Nil in the Police Station, Chhibramau, under intimation to S. P. Fatehgarh, Chief Minister, U. P. , Chief Secretary, Lucknow, Sr. Regional Manager, Lucknow and D. M. Kanpur. He also made allegation against the Depot Incharge vide his letter No. Nil dated 23-6-76 that Depot Incharge, Chhibramau is not allowing him to sign in the attendance register inspite of his presence on duty, addressed to Distt. Manager, FCI, Kanpur. The said Sri Rameshwar, during his posting at FCI Etawah in the month of Jan/feb, 78 attacked on Sri N. K. Singh, A. M. (D), Etawah and manhandled Sri N. K. Singh, A. M. (D), Etawah. He made false allegations against Sri N. K. Singh, AM (D) vide his letter dated 9/7/78, 18/7/78. He also got an application dated 13- 3-78 moved through his wife alleging abductment of her husband by Sri N. K. Singh. " 9. From perusal of Annexure-II, which is detail statement of imputation, it is clear that charges were clearly made out against the petitioner and the submission that charges are vague is incorrect. He also got an application dated 13- 3-78 moved through his wife alleging abductment of her husband by Sri N. K. Singh. " 9. From perusal of Annexure-II, which is detail statement of imputation, it is clear that charges were clearly made out against the petitioner and the submission that charges are vague is incorrect. Annexure-I contains precise charges whereas Annexure-II contains statement of imputation. Annexures-I and II read together clearly give the entire charges against the petitioner which cannot be termed as vague. The first submission raised by the counsel for the petitioner, thus, has no substance. 10. The petitioner has also placed reliance on a judgment of apex Court reported in 1986 Lab. I. C. 855, Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan. In the said judgment, the apex Court looking to the nature of the charges in the said case held that charges were vague and it was difficult to meet the charges fairly by any accused. The above judgment was on nature of charges as noted in the said case. The imputation of charges in the present case has already been extracted above with regard to Article-I of the charges. Perusal of imputation read with Article-I clearly makes out specific charges, which were capable of reply and clearly gave out the imputation. 11. The second submission of counsel for the petitioner is that documents demanded by the petitioner were not given to him which violates the principle of natural justice. 12. From the memo dated 27th June, 1985 which was issued to the petitioner, it is clear that documents which were sought to be relied in the charges were clearly mentioned in the article of charges and statement of imputation. A list of documents by which the article of charges were proposed to be substantiated was given in Annexure-Ili to the memo. The procedure for disciplinary enquiry is contained in Regulation 58 of the Regulations. Regulation-58 sub-regulation (11) entitles the employee to inspect and take extract from documents specified in the list referred to in Regulation 58 (3 ). Regulation (58) sub-regulation (3) is extracted below: "58 (3 ). The procedure for disciplinary enquiry is contained in Regulation 58 of the Regulations. Regulation-58 sub-regulation (11) entitles the employee to inspect and take extract from documents specified in the list referred to in Regulation 58 (3 ). Regulation (58) sub-regulation (3) is extracted below: "58 (3 ). Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against an employee of the Corporation under this regulation and Regulation 59, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up : (i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge; (ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain : (a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the employee. (b) a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. " 13. Regulation 58 (11) gives a right to employee to inspect and take extract from the list of documents. It is relevant to note that Note to Regulation 11 (ii) of Regulation 58 provides for copies of statement of witnesses mentioned in sub-regulation (3 ). The scheme of regulation, thus, although provides for copy of the statement of witnesses mentioned in Regulation 3 but does not provide for giving the copy of documents as mentioned in sub-regulation (3 ). The employee has been given right to inspect and take extract from the documents. In the counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that opportunity was given to the petitioner to inspect the documents and take extract which was not availed by the petitioner. The list of documents itself having contained in the charge-sheet which was part of the enquiry, it cannot be said that petitioner was not given opportunity to inspect the documents. It was not mandatory for corporation to have given the copies of the documents as demanded by the petitioner whereas the documents contained various letters sent by the official of the corporation from time to time with regard to the petitioner, reports of Depot Incharge and other letters and documents. The enquiry report has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-14 to the writ petition which enquiry report mentions several dates fixed by the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure-14 to the writ petition which enquiry report mentions several dates fixed by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner did not appear in the enquiry and hence submission of the respondents that petitioner deliberately avoided to appear in the enquiry has substance. In view of the above, the second submission of the petitioner that rules of natural justice were violated in not giving the documents cannot be accepted. 14. The third submission raised by counsel for the petitioner is that no witness having been examined by the employer to prove the charges, there was no admissible evidence in the enquiry on which punishment order could have been passed. It is admitted that neither of the parties produced any oral evidence in the enquiry. In the enquiry only documentary evidence was relied by the department, list of which was already supplied to the petitioner along with memo dated 27th June, 1985. The documents referred to in the list contain various letters and report sent by the various officials of the Food Corporation of India with regard to the petitioner and other letters. The issue raised is that those documents unless proved by the oral evidence could not have been relied in the enquiry. It has, thus, to be examined as to whether documents produced in the enquiry on behalf of the department have to be necessarily proved by some oral evidence before reliance can be placed or it can be relied by the Enquiry Officer in support of his findings. Regulation 58 of the Regulations does not specifically require proving of documents produced in the enquiry. 15. Apex Court in (1982)1 LLJ 46 (SC), State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh, has laid down that sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act do not apply in a domestic enquiry. The apex Court further held that all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. Following was laid down in paragraph 4 of the judgment: " (4) It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and creditability. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and creditability. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor textbooks, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectively, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached such finding, even though of a domestic, Tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the Courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the Tribunal before the valid finding could be recorded. The "residium" rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passages from the American jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from the Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical sides governing regular Court proceedings but in a fair common sense way as men of understanding and worldy wisdom will accept. " 16. A Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in 1978 Lab. I. C. 1312, Zonal Manager, LIC of India and others v. Mohan Lal Saraf, has also clearly held that the documents produced in the enquiry does not become inadmissible simply because the maker of the document has not been examined as a witness. It was laid down in the said judgment in paragraph 9: " (9) It is settled law that Evidence Act is not applicable to the proceedings before domestic tribunals and that strict and sophisticated rules of evidence do not apply to such enquiries. Material which may not be strictly admissible in evidence in a Court of law can nonetheless be admitted into evidence in domestic enquiries provided, the enquiry officer is satisfied about the credibility of the evidence to be so admitted. Material which may not be strictly admissible in evidence in a Court of law can nonetheless be admitted into evidence in domestic enquiries provided, the enquiry officer is satisfied about the credibility of the evidence to be so admitted. In domestic enquiries even hearsay evidence, coming from a credible source has been held to be admissible (AIR 1976 Punj and Har 381) (FB ). The rule that unless the maker of a document is available for cross-examination, the document should not be admitted into evidence, is a rule from the Evidence Act and has no application to domestic enquiries. With respect, we find ourselves unable to agree with the learned single Judge that simply because the maker of the document has not been examined as a witness the document becomes inadmissible. The flaw in such a proposition of law would be that it tends to equate departmental enquiry with proceedings in a Court of law. So far as a domestic enquiry is concerned, the only requirement of law is that it should be consistent with principle of natural justice. It would be stretching the principles of natural justice to a breaking limit if it were to be held that evidence, though credible, is inadmissible because the maker of the document sought to be admitted in evidence has not appeared at the enquiry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 17. Similar view has been taken by me in judgment dated 17th July, 2002 in Writ Petition No. 29653 of 1999, Raj Babu Agnihotri v. Labour Commissioner, U. P. , Kanpur and others. In the aforesaid case, the argument was raised that the documents in the enquiry having not been proved by any witness, the same cannot be relied. In the said case Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 was under consideration. Following was observed in the said judgment: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The submission which requires to be examined is as to whether in the oral enquiry the Employer must necessarily bring oral evidence to prove the documents relied in the charge sheet and to prove the charges. Following was observed in the said judgment: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The submission which requires to be examined is as to whether in the oral enquiry the Employer must necessarily bring oral evidence to prove the documents relied in the charge sheet and to prove the charges. The counsel for the petitioner has much emphasised that unless the documents and charges are proved in the enquiry, it cannot be held that there is enquiry held. The reading of Rule 55 sub-rule (1) expressly do not provide that it is obligatory on the Employer to bring oral evidence to prove the charges. The rule do not indicate that in case oral evidence is not brought by the Employer the charges must fail. There is no doubt that oral enquiry is held to enquire the veracity of the charges and to examine the allegations made against the delinquent. The words used under Rule 55 are "an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted". Thus the enquiry has to be confined to the allegations which are not admitted. The question is that if in the charge-sheet certain documents are referred, does the Employers have necessarily bring the witnesses to prove the correctness of the documents or unless the documents are proved, they cannot be relied upon. In the oral enquiry what evidence is required to prove the charges is a fact which may differ from case to case. If the allegations in the charges are such which can be proved by oral evidence, it is necessary for the employer to bring oral evidence to prove the charges but if the allegations in an enquiry are such which can be proved from the documents, it is not obligatory for the Employer to bring oral evidence. Moreover, even in cases where the charges are based on documents. Employer may be required to prove the documents in an event when the genuineness or veracity of the documents have been denied by the delinquent. In a case where the genuineness or veracity of the documents have not been denied by the delinquent the employer may not fail on the ground that no witness has come forward to prove the document. The disciplinary enquiry is not governed by strict rules of evidence. " 18. In a case where the genuineness or veracity of the documents have not been denied by the delinquent the employer may not fail on the ground that no witness has come forward to prove the document. The disciplinary enquiry is not governed by strict rules of evidence. " 18. From the proposition as laid down in the above cases, it is clear that the documents brought in the enquiry by department does not become inadmissible merely because maker of the document has not come to prove the said documents or no oral evidence has been lead to prove the documents. In the present case, the documents, which were relied, were letters sent by official of the corporation in normal course of business. They also contain some letters and complaints written by the petitioner himself. The petitioner has filed copy of the reply of charge-sheet as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In his reply although the petitioner has denied the charges but has not said anything about the letters and documents which were mentioned in the charge-sheet. The petitioner never appeared in the enquiry nor made any request for inspecting the documents as permissible under Regulation 58 (11) of the Regulations. The petitioner has not submitted anything before the Enquiry Officer denying the genuineness or veracity of the said documents. In above view of the matter, I am not persuaded to accept the submission of the petitioner that there was no admissible evidence in the enquiry from which charges can be proved. The documents listed in the charge-sheet were valid materials which contain reports and letters with regard to various incidents reflecting on the conduct of the petitioner which was part of the charges. Those documents cannot be said to be irrelevant or inadmissible. Thus, the submission of the petitioners counsel that there was no admissible evidence in the enquiry on the basis of which the charges can be relied in the enquiry cannot be accepted. 19. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Madras High Court reported in 1967 LLJ 537 Menon (N. K. G.) v. Superintending Engineer, Vellor Electricity System and another. 19. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Madras High Court reported in 1967 LLJ 537 Menon (N. K. G.) v. Superintending Engineer, Vellor Electricity System and another. In the said judgment the Madras High Court was considering Rule 17 of the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and held that after examination of prosecution witnesses and 0 their cross-examination, the delinquent is entitled to give evidence in person and to have defence witnesses called. In the above case, the delinquent made a request in the enquiry for adjournment praying that he is not being permitted to examine defence witnesses. The Enquiry Officer did not give an opportunity to the delinquent, hence it was found that the order of removal was bad. In the present case, the petitioner neither appeared in the enquiry nor made any such request for opposing any evidence. The said case has no application in the facts of the present case. 20. The next submission of petitioners counsel is that request for change of the Enquiry Officer ought to have been acceded to by the authorities. From the sequence of events as appears from pleading of the parties, it is clear that petitioner has from very beginning adopted unco-operative attitude to the enquiry. The petitioner did not appear on any date in the enquiry. Petitioners letter, Annexure-10 to the writ petition dated 5th March, 1986 clearly shows that petitioner was well aware of the enquiry. The petitioner has raised his objection to appear at Naini Depot due to the reason as already mentioned by him in his letter dated 24th February, 1986. The enquiry report clearly notes that on advice of the District Manager, as per request of the petitioner, place of enquiry was changed to District Office, Kanpur. The enquiry at District Office, Kanpur was fixed for 19-5-1986 and thereafter 23rd June, 1986 on which dates the petitioner did not appear. There was no infirmity in the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and no error was committed by the authorities in not changing the Enquiry Officer. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer which was not availed of. 21. The last submission of the petitioners counsel is that no dates were fixed in the enquiry. There was no infirmity in the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and no error was committed by the authorities in not changing the Enquiry Officer. Full opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer which was not availed of. 21. The last submission of the petitioners counsel is that no dates were fixed in the enquiry. The copy of the enquiry report has been filed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition which mentions dates in the enquiry which were fixed by the Enquiry Officer with information to the petitioner. The petitioner was aware of the dates of the enquiry and has objected the place of enquiry at Naini. At the request of the petitioner the place was changed from Naini Depot to District Office, Kanpur. The submission of the petitioner that no dates were fixed in the enquiry is also not correct. The enquiry report contains details of the proceedings. 22. I have also gone through the articles of charges levelled against the petitioner and findings of the Enquiry Officer. The findings have been recorded by Enquiry Officer proving all the charges against the petitioner except Charge No. 3. The allegation of misbehaviour and in-discipline with his officers has been found proved. Allegation of misbehaviour with Assistant Manager of the Food Corporation of India was also found proved. Various other acts of misconduct were found proved. The appellate authority and reviewing authority have also considered the submissions raised before them and found the submissions raised by the petitioner without any substance. The scope of judicial review of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority on the guilt of an employee based on appreciation of evidence is very limited. Taking into overall consideration of facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders. None of the submissions raised of the petitioner has any substance. 23. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. .