Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner was appointed as an LDC on 13-11-1970 by the District and Sessions Judge, Guna. In the year 1971 he was transferred from Guna, Biaora in the District Rajgarh which at the material time was under the Civil District of Guna. The said order of transfer was passed by the District and Sessions Judge. In the year 1973 the petitioner was retransferred to Guna and was working on the post of LDC. In the year 1975 the Civil District, Guna was bifurcated and separate Civil District was constituted at Rajgarh. The employees working in the District of Rajgarh remained under the District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh and those who were working in the District Guna remained under the administrative control of the District and Sessions Judge, Guna. The petitioner continued at Guna. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner in the year 1978 the Registrar, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, respondent No. 2 herein passed the order of transfer, transferring the petitioner from Guna District to Rajgarh District. In the year 1987 the petitioner was attached to the office of Civil Judge, Biaora vide order issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh. It is pleaded that at the relevant time the petitioner was elected as President of Nyayik Karamchari Sangh, Biaora. It is put froth that the petitioner submitted certain representations to the District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh to get himself re-transferred. The wife of the petitioner got herself operated for the purpose of family planning and as per the Government Circular he was entitled to receive two advance increments and accordingly he submitted a representation on 3-1-1987 for sanction of two advance increments from the year 1983 keeping in view the date of operation. The said demand of the petitioner as put forth, caused annoyance to the authorities. The case of the petitioner is that because of the aforesaid demand petitioners increments were not sanctioned. At this juncture when the father of the petitioner breathed his last he submitted a representation for cancellation of his posting at Biaora and requested him to post him back to Guna as he was commuting from Guna daily. Because of repeated requests, as pleaded, a charge-sheet vide memo dated 3-11-88 was served on the petitioner alongwith imputation of misconduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation rebutting the charges levelled against him. Because of repeated requests, as pleaded, a charge-sheet vide memo dated 3-11-88 was served on the petitioner alongwith imputation of misconduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation rebutting the charges levelled against him. It is the stand of the petitioner that the District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh appointed an Enquiry Officer under Rule 14 (5) of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short the Rules) and a Presenting Officer without informing the petitioner was also appointed. The Enquiry Officer thereafter without giving intimation to the petitioner proceeded and before him one Deputy Clerk of Court, Mr. D. N. Shrivastava, a law graduate presented the case of the department. The petitioner was pitted against a law knowing person, but he was not provided any legal aid. As prayed for, taking assistance of another Government servant was also declined. The Enquiry Officer eventually submitted a report holding that the petitioner was guilty of all charges except charge No. 2 which relates to gambling by the petitioner. During the pendency of the first charge-sheet respondent No. 2 issued another charge-sheet against him for unauthorized absence for the period from 22-8-89 to 24-8-89 and 25-8-89 to 29-8-89 for a total period of eight days. The Enquiry Officer proceeded in the enquiry and returned a finding against him. The respondent No. 3 on 31-7-90 passed the order of removal from service. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 highlighting all the irregularities and eventually on 14-8-91 the appeal of the petitioner was rejected. ( 3. ) IT is averred in the petition that the District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh would not have passed the order as the appointing authority of the petitioner is the District and Sessions Judge, Guna. A further stand is that he should have been afforded an opportunity to engage a legal practitioner. It is averred that the petitioner could not examine the witnesses effectively as a consequence of which adverse finding was recorded by him. The stance taken in the petition is that the Appellate Authority had not passed a reasoned order but a cryptic one which requires to be interfered with by this Court. It is averred that the petitioner could not examine the witnesses effectively as a consequence of which adverse finding was recorded by him. The stance taken in the petition is that the Appellate Authority had not passed a reasoned order but a cryptic one which requires to be interfered with by this Court. With the aforesaid assertions prayer has been made for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order of removal and affirmation thereof by the Appellate Authority as contained in Annexures 8 and 10 respectively and further to issue a command to the respondent to release the increments of the petitioner from 1978 onwards and confer the benefit of revision of pay scale. ( 4. ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 resisting the claim put forth by the petitioner and contending, inter alia, that the services of the petitioner were placed at the establishment of District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh and considering his conduct charge-sheet was issued on 2-11-1988. It is also asserted that during the enquiry proceeding the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity and he had cross-examined the witnesses. In respect of the second proceeding it has been asserted that the petitioner admitted the charges levelled against him as per Annexure R-l and accordingly Enquiry Officer has submitted his report as per Annexure R-2 to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as rendered in two departmental proceedings. Show-cause notice was issued proposing punishment of removal from service. He was afforded opportunity of filing reply and the petitioner also filed the reply and prayed that instead of imposing major penalty a minor penalty be imposed. The order passed by the Appellate Authority has been supported on the ground that the Appellate Authority concurred with the view of disciplinary authority. It is the stand in the counter affidavit that the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer in the first enquiry are based on documentary evidence adduced in the enquiry and in the second case the petitioner have admitted all the charges. Considering the seriousness of the charge the punishment was imposed and there is nothing wrong with the orders. It is the stand in the counter affidavit that the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer in the first enquiry are based on documentary evidence adduced in the enquiry and in the second case the petitioner have admitted all the charges. Considering the seriousness of the charge the punishment was imposed and there is nothing wrong with the orders. It is further put forth that as far as grant of increments was concerned it is stated that the petitioner did not make an application for grant of leave for the period in question. It is also put forth that his pay has been fixed as per the Chowdhury Pay Commission. ( 5. ) I have heard Mr. Nilesh Kotecha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. G Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. S. K. Yadav, Government Advocate, Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4. ( 6. ) MR. Kotecha has assailed the impugned order of removal and affirmation thereof. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not extended the benefit of engaging a legal hand. It is also canvassed by him that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated because of animosity and hence it has to be viewed in a different perspective. It is further submitted by Mr. Kotecha that considering the strata of the petitioner and the charges proved against him the punishment is disproportionate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the charge of unauthorized absence has not been proved as attendance register has not been produced. ( 7. ) MR. S. C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, countering the aforesaid submissions contended that the scope of judicial review is limited and in the case at hand and justice has been done inasmuch as 8 out of the 9 charges had been proved. It is also submitted by him that there had been no issues which were legally complex so as to give assistance of a legal practitioner to the petitioner. It is further urged by him, petitioner had been given adequate opportunity to defend himself and hence no fault can be found with the enquiry. Mr. Sharma has also urged that the doctrine of proportionality is not attracted to the case at hand as when so many charges have been proved. ( 8. It is further urged by him, petitioner had been given adequate opportunity to defend himself and hence no fault can be found with the enquiry. Mr. Sharma has also urged that the doctrine of proportionality is not attracted to the case at hand as when so many charges have been proved. ( 8. ) TO appreciate the submissions raise at bar it is relevant to refer to the charges which were levelled against the petitioner on the first occasion. The English translation of the charges would read as under: " (1) You were posted as Assistant Copyist in the Copying Section, Biaora during the period 16-3-87 to 11-10-88. While working as such, you were duty bound to write 16 letters per day in accordance with the provisions of Rule 517 of the M. P. Civil Courts Rules and Orders, 1961 but you failed to perform your duties as per the standard for most of the working days during May, 1987 to 5-10-1988 and on several dates you did not work at all. Thus you failed to discharge your duties and infringed Rule 3 of the M. P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. (2) In the evening at about 6. 00 of 5-7-1988, you alongwith others were found gambling in the Bar Room, Biaora, which is a public place. Thus, by gambling at a public place, you committed a crime, which is a misconduct. (3) On 19-8-1988, you had used abusive language against Shri Om Prakash Rajput, Junior Naib Nazir and threatened him, which is a misconduct and shows your conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. (4) On the aforesaid date 19-84988, you abused Shri R. P. Verma, Civil Judge Class-I and Incharge Nazarat, Biaora by using vulgar language which is a conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. (5) You are habitual of absenting from duties wilfully without giving any application for leave and without getting the same sanctioned, which is violation of Rule 7 of the M. P. Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1965. (6) Your headquarter was Biaora but you used to go to Guna every day without obtaining prior permission and this act of yours is a misconduct and in violation of Rule 7 of the M. P. Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1965. (6) Your headquarter was Biaora but you used to go to Guna every day without obtaining prior permission and this act of yours is a misconduct and in violation of Rule 7 of the M. P. Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1965. (7) You had almost wilfully remained absent from your duties without submitting application for leave and with a view to suppress your unauthorized absence from duties, you signed the attendance register for future dates in advance. Thus you committed manipulation in the Government Records and fraud against the Officer Incharge. (8) You used to come and go back to Guna every day without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority and because of this you failed most of the time to reach the place of your duty in time and thus you committed violation of the Government orders. (9) On being transferred you were relieved on 12-10-1998. After availing the period of joining you had to join at the transferred place on 24-10-1988 but you reported your joining in the afternoon at 4:00 p. m. on 24-10-1988. Thus, you committed a misconduct by remaining wilfully absent from your duty, after availing the joining time". ( 9. ) OUT of the aforesaid nine except charge No. 2 was proved. On a perusal of the enquiry report it is crystal clear that the petitioner had been granted an opportunity for cross examining the witnesses. The allegation that the petitioner was not intimated about the appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer is totally inconsequential inasmuch as no prejudice has been caused. The charge which has been levelled against the petitioner did not really involve any kind of legal issue and all of them arc based on facts. A Deputy Law Clerk was appointed as Presenting Officer. He might be a law graduate but that docs not make it necessitous to provide a professional hand to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has analysed the material brought on record and recorded the finding in respect of the charges. As far as the second charge is concerned there has been an admission by the employee as is perceivable from Annexure R-1. It is well settled in law that in a Departmental Enquiry relating to finding of fact the Court could not interfere unless such finding are based on no evidence and are perverse and legally untenable. As far as the second charge is concerned there has been an admission by the employee as is perceivable from Annexure R-1. It is well settled in law that in a Departmental Enquiry relating to finding of fact the Court could not interfere unless such finding are based on no evidence and are perverse and legally untenable. In this context, I may refer with profit to the decision rendered in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A. K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759 . The Apex Court has expressed the view as under : "one finding of fact, based on appreciation of evidence arc recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings arc based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since the High Court docs not sit as an Appellate Authority over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court can not normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. " ( 10. ) IN view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer do not suffer from any kind of perversity. ( 11. ) AS far as proportionality of punishment is concerned it is settled in law if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is totally disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent officer. In this context, I may refer to the decision rendered in the case of Regional Manager and Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Hyderabad and Anr. v. S. Mohammed Gaffar, (2002) 7 SCC 168 , wherein it has been held as under : "in departmental proceedings, insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the Disciplinary or Appellate Authority is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally interfere with the same or substitute its own opinion and either impose some other punishment or penalty or direct the authority to impose a particular nature or category of punishment of its choice. " ( 12. " ( 12. ) THE charges proved against the petitioner arc quite grave and it can not be inappropriate to say that the punishment of removal is shocking to the conscience or totally disproportionate. Thus, the submission of the petitioner that there should be a lenient punishment docs not deserve acceptability. ( 13. ) RESULTANTLY, the writ petition being, sans merit, stands dismissed with no orders as to costs.