Judgment ( 1. ) CHALLENGING the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 17-11-1992 Annexure P/8 imposing penalty of removal from service on the petitioner and consequential orders Annexures A/9 and A/10 passed by the appellate Authority dismissing appeal and revision of the petitioner vide annexure P/11 and confirming the orders of removal, petitioner has filed this petition. ( 2. ) PETITIONER was employed as Trademan No. 31 in the Second Battalion saf, Bhopal and was posted in the ATC Tower, Air Port, Bairagarh, Bhopal at the relevant time. On 20-6-1992 Company Commandant of the Battalion Shri r. C. Sharma was conducting his routine night check when at about 1. 45 hours in the night intervening 20th and 21st June, 1992 when he reached the Barracks where the members of the force were staying, he found some commotion and voice of a lady coming from a particular barrack, he therefore immediately summoned constable Shri Chandan Singh, Shri Man Bahadur, Shri Roop Singh, shri Janki Prasad and others, went to the Barrack from where the voice came when it was found that in the barrack petitioner Ram Prakash Trademan, was in the company of a lady who was later identified as one Saraswati Bai living in the area, immediately message was sent to Police Station from where ASI came in the night and took away the petitioner and the lady for further action, on the ground that petitioner was found in the company of a lady unauthorizedly in the night at about 1. 45 AM in the barrack in a highly prohibited security zone, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, who given his explanation and the same being found unsatisfactory Shri Gurudayal Singh Gill, Assistant Commandant was appointed as Inquiry Officer for conducting a enquiry, who after enquiry submitted his report on 10-9-1992 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. On the basis of finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry officer penalty was imposed upon the petitioner, appeal and revision filed to the competent authority having been dismissed, this petition was filed initially in the year 1995 before the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal and after winding up of the tribunal matter stands transferred to this Court. ( 3. On the basis of finding of guilt recorded by the Inquiry officer penalty was imposed upon the petitioner, appeal and revision filed to the competent authority having been dismissed, this petition was filed initially in the year 1995 before the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal and after winding up of the tribunal matter stands transferred to this Court. ( 3. ) SHRI P. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is an illiterate class-IV employee who does not know about his rights and is not aware of the formalities which are to be complied with in the matter of conducting departmental enquiry, it is stated by him that petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter and has been punished in an arbitrary manner which is not justified. Referring to the Rojnamcha said to have been maintained in the Police Station, bairagarh as contained in Annexure A/1 dated 20-6-1992 Shri P. N. Gupta, learned counsel tried to emphasize that in this report it is only stated that when the company commandant Shri R. C. Sharma, heard some noise and when he went to the barrack, petitioner was found in the company of a woman and when the woman was asked as to why she has come there, she did not say anything, therefore, Shri Gupta, emphasized that this is the story as per the first information available on record but subsequently before the Inquiry Officer and before other authorities the story has been developed and it is now indicated that on enquiry it was stated by the lady that she had come to collect some money and that her husband is in jail, therefore, she has come to take money from the petitioner. Inter alia contending that the statement made in the enquiry by the witnesses particularly by Shri R. C. Sharma Company Commander and the facts indicated in Rojnamcha of Police Station, Bairagarh as contained in Annexure A/1 are entirely different and there is serious discrepancies in the statement of witnesses which amounts to perversity in the finding of the competent authority, interference in the matter is sought for. Taking me through the statement of Shri r. R. Yadav ASI recorded before the Inquiry Officer and the report made in the rojnamcha Annexure A/1 so also the statement of some of the witnesses examined in the enquiry, Shri P. N. Gupta contended that petitioner is a poor illiterate employee belonging to the reserved community and has been falsely implicated and punished which is highly improper and illegal, finally on the ground of perversity in the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer, interference in the matter is sought for in this petition. Shri Gupta, emphasized that the punishment imposed is too harsh and sympathetic consideration has to be given in the matter as petitioner is a illiterate person belonging to the reserved category. It was further emphasized by him the punishment imposed is highly excessive and disproportionate and therefore this Court should interfere in the matter, it was also argued by Shri P. N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner that in the charge-sheet and the proceedings held, lady Smt. Saraswati Bai is said to be a lady of doubtful character, it is stated that this statement was made by ASI Shri r. R. Yadav, but he has not produced any evidence or material to substantiate this contention and therefore, the charges that petitioner was found in the company of a lady of doubtful character is not established and therefore the entire action and the finding recorded is perverse and liable to be interfered with. In support of his contention he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Juwarsingh and others vs. The State of M. P. , AIR 1981 SC 373 , in the case of Union of India and another vs. G. Ganayutham (Dead) by l. Rs. , AIR 1997 SC 3387 and in the case of Ministry of Finance and another vs. S. B. Ramesh, AIR 1998 SC 853 . ( 4. ) REFUTING the aforesaid and taking me through the evidence and material available on record Ku. Sudha Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer representing the State in this case submitted that petitioner is a member of the disciplined force and is found in the company of a lady in a unauthorized manner in the mids of the night at about 1. ) REFUTING the aforesaid and taking me through the evidence and material available on record Ku. Sudha Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer representing the State in this case submitted that petitioner is a member of the disciplined force and is found in the company of a lady in a unauthorized manner in the mids of the night at about 1. 45 AM in a sensitive area i. e. ATC tower at Airport bairagarh, Bhopal in the capital of the State, presence of a lady in a unauthorized manner in the barrack of a member of the force is unexplained, Ku. Sudha shrivastava argued that in taking action, respondents have not committed any error and as the action is taken on the basis of finding of guilt recorded in a properly conducted enquiry, no case is made out for interference. It was argued by Ku. Sudha Shrivastava that a administrative decision taken after following all rules and principles of justice cannot be interfered with by this Court as it is exercising appellate jurisdiction in a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, learned counsel for State prays for dismissal of this petition. ( 5. ) I have heard leaned counsel for parties at length and perused the records. ( 6. ) FROM the records it is seen that after charge-sheet was issued, petitioner submitted his reply to the same. In the reply petitioner admitted the presence of smt. Saraswati Bai in the barrack at the time when the Company Commander shri R. C. Sharma arrived there in the night, however, his explanation was that he is a poor employee, illiterate does not know the rules or procedure and submitted that husband of the lady is in jail and therefore, she had come to collect money from him, being not satisfied with the reply Shri Gurudayal Singh Gil], Assistant commandant is appointed as Inquiry Officer who has conducted a detailed enquiry and during the course of hearing Ku. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for State has produced the original enquiry file for perusal of this Court. A perusal of enquiry proceedings indicates that enquiry was conduced on various dates and during the enquiry petitioner was present on each and every date. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for State has produced the original enquiry file for perusal of this Court. A perusal of enquiry proceedings indicates that enquiry was conduced on various dates and during the enquiry petitioner was present on each and every date. In the enquiry following witnesses were examined namely Shri R. C. Sharma, company Commandant, Shri Man Bahadur, Shri R. R. Yadav, ASI Police Station bairagarh, Shri Chandan Singh, Shri Roop Singh, Shri Imalika rojnamcha writer of Police Station Bairagarh and Shri D. K. Sakale, Police Station House Incharge, bairagarh. All the witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner, they were offered for cross-examination and petitioner had cross-examined Shri R. C. Sharma Company Commandant, Shri R. R. Yadav, ASI, Shri Chandan Singh and when other witnesses were offered for cross-examination petitioner refused to cross-examine there, thereafter, he was given opportunity for giving his statement, adduce evidence in defence and produce document. However, he stated that he has nothing to say in the matter and did not adduce any evidence or produce any document. From a perusal of the entire enquiry proceedings it is seen that the enquiry was held in the presence of the petitioner witnesses were examined in his presence and he had cross-examined some of the witnesses and refused to cross-examine other witnesses who were offered for cross-examination, nothing is seen in the enquiry on the basis of which it can be held by this Court that the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer is illegal, is in violation to statutory rules or principles of natural justice. Even during the course of hearing Shri P. N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner did not point out any specific irregularity or illegality with regard to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. That being so in the absence of any. challenge being made to the manner in which the departmental enquiry was conducted it has to be held that this is a case where a departmental enquiry is conducted in accordance to the rules after following the principles of natural justice and no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in the matter of conducting departmental enquiry. ( 7. ) THE main ground urged by Shri P. N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner was with regard to perversity in the finding recorded. ( 7. ) THE main ground urged by Shri P. N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner was with regard to perversity in the finding recorded. Shri Gupta, invited my attention to Annexure A/1 said to be a copy of the rojnamcha prepared in the Police Station, Bairagarh and the first information with regard to entire incident which is recorded in the Rojnamcha, this document Annexure A/1 is available at pages 11 and 12 of the writ petition, a perusal of this documents indicates that it is a photocopy of some documents it does not bear any signature, seal or endorsement by any competent authority, on the contrary available on record of the D. E. , is a document Annexure P/5 proved on the basis of statement of Shri R. R. Yadav, ASI Police Station Bairagarh who is witness in the departmental enquiry, according to this witness Ex. D/5 is the Rojnamcha prepared by him, of the incident the particulars given in this rojnamcha Ex. P/5 and the photocopy produced is totally different in the document Ex. D/5 the rojnamcha it is indicated that when Shri R. R. Yadav, ASI was on the night duty from 10-50 to 3. 50 AM he received information with regard to some incident that had taken place in the Airport where Shri R. C. Sharma Company Commandant informed the Police Station on Phone about the incident, he immediately went to the place of incident which happened to be the barrack of a member of force and in a barrack he found the petitioner Ram Prakash sitting in the veranda and a lady inside the room, the incident was narrated to him by Shri R. C. Sharma and other persons and he being ASI in-charge of the area identified the lady Saraswati Bai as a lady of loose character living in the area. Whereas Annexure A/1 all these details are not mentioned. This document Annexure A/1 is not available in the original enquiry file and this document cannot be relied upon as it does not bear the signature of any authority nor it is certified to be a true copy of the rojnamcha maintained in the police station, that being so no reliance can be placed on this document and it has to be ignored. From the statement of witnesses recorded in the enquiry Shri Manbahadur and Chandan Singh it is clear that when Shri R. C. Sharma was taking round of the area he found that in a barrack some voice of a man and woman was coming he along with Chandan Singh and others went to the barrack, it is stated that they found the petitioner in the room with a lady, the facts established form the evidence that have come on record are :- (1)Petitioner is a member of Special Armed Force and was posted in a sensitive area at Airport Bhopal. (2) He was allotted a barrack in the sensitive and high security area prohibited to others in the Airport area i. e. ATC tower which is one of the higher security area, in such area all unauthorized entries by any person is prohibited, (3) in the night when the company commander was taking round in the area, petitioner was found in the company of this unauthorized person, a lady smt. Saraswati Bai. ( 8. ) PETITIONER is not permitted under the departmental rules to allow any unauthorized persons to come into his barrack. These facts are evident from the evidence that have come on record and if some addition and subtraction are made in the evidence they does not make any material difference to the substantial factual aspect of the matter that has came on record with regard to permitting a unauthorized person to come into prohibited area in the night at about 1. 45 AM and this is the main allegation against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. ( 9. ) THAT being so the question is as to whether on the basis of some minor discrepancies in the statement of witnesses as pointed out Shri P. N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner this Court while exercising jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can hold the finding to be perverse, punishment highly disproportionate and grant relief to the petitioner. ( 10. ) ON this count it would be appropriate to refer to the judgments relied upon by Shri P. N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner and thereafter examine the legal position of the case. In the case of Ganayutham (supra) principle for appreciating the evidence adduced, the criteria laid down for interference in administrative action and scope of judicial review in such cases are laid down. In the case of Ganayutham (supra) principle for appreciating the evidence adduced, the criteria laid down for interference in administrative action and scope of judicial review in such cases are laid down. This judgment indicates that validity of a administrative order or statutory discretion can be scrutinized by applying the Wednesbury test to find out if decision is illegal or suffers from procedural improprieties or is one which no sensible decision maker would, on the material before him arrive at. If this case is applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case it would be seen that there is no procedural impropriety nor is the decision making process illegal, the material available on record are also sufficient to hold that petitioner, a member of Armed force was found in the company of a unauthorized person in a highly sensitive and prohibited area i. e. high security area of the airport in the night. That being so this case will not apply to the facts and circumstances that have come on record. The case of S. B. Ramesh (supra) relied upon is also not helpful to the petitioner as it pertains to mis-conduct by a Government servant found to be living with another woman even though he is married, the said judgment does not apply in the present case. Similarly the case of Juwarsingh (supra) also distinguishable. ( 11. ) THE scope of judicial review into a administrative matter particularly action taken by departmental authorities after conducting departmental enquiry and the jurisdiction of the Courts to interfering with the quantum of punishment is considered in the following cases. The Commissioner of Police and others vs. Syed Hussain, 2006 (3) SCC 173 this was a case where the petitioner a constable was found to have indulged in some irregularity for helping a accused for obtaining bail. In this case it has been held by the Supreme Court that discretionary power exercised should be interfered with while exercising powers of judicial review only when it is found that the action taken is so illegal and the punishment is so harsh that it is arbitrary so as to attract the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. In this case it has been held by the Supreme Court that discretionary power exercised should be interfered with while exercising powers of judicial review only when it is found that the action taken is so illegal and the punishment is so harsh that it is arbitrary so as to attract the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. Similarly in the case A. Sudhakar vs. Postmaster General, hyderabad and another, (2006) 4 SCC 348 , the scope of interference with punishment and decision taken by the departmental authority after conducting departmental enquiry is considered and it has been held by the Supreme Court that if compliance of procedural rules is made and if the procedure followed has not resulted in denial of justice Courts should not normally interfere with in such matters. Similarly in the case of State Bank of India vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212 it has been held that in service matters and in particular conduct of departmental enquiry re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible. It is held that if evidence is considered by the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority and Appellate Authority, it is not permissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different conclusion, the re-appreciation in such matters are permissible only if the material available on record and the evidence does not establish the conclusion arrived at by the authorities or the conclusion is such that no prudent person can arrive at the same on the basis of the given set of circumstances. Similar is the view expressed with regard to scope of judicial review in the case of Bank of India and others vs. T. Jogram, (2007) 2 scc 236, a complete reading of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases and various other case relied upon therein indicates that while considering the question of interference into a administrative action taken for imposing punishment after departmental enquiry the scope of juridical review is limited to examining the decision making process and not the decision itself. If the decision making process is in accordance to the rule, after following the principles of natural justice then the decision can be interfered with only if the conclusion arrived by the authority is perverse, to such an extent that no prudent person in the given set of circumstances would arrive at such a conclusion, it is therefore, clear that the scope of judicial review is very limited and interference is permissible only in such cases where finding recorded by the authorities is by ignoring material, evidence or by misreading of evidence to such an extent that entire finding stands vitiated due to perversity, similarly punishment imposed by disciplinary authority can be interfered with by this Court only if the punishment is shown to be so harsh and excessive, it warrants interference as it shocks the conscious of the Court. It is in the backdrop of these legal principles that the action of the respondents is to be examined by this Court in the present case. ( 12. ) AS already indicated hereinabove petitioner is a member of the SAF a disciplined force entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining security and protecting a highly sensitive area like a airport in the capital of the State, a person entrusted with such a responsibility is required to maintain a very high standard of discipline and dedication towards his duties, petitioner admits of permitting a woman to enter into this high security area in the night after 1 AM in an unauthorized manner and the only explanation given by him is that her husband is in jail and she had come to collect some money. It is surprising that a woman would come in the mids of the night at 1. 45 AM to collect money, the story put forth by the petitioner seems to be very improbable and this explanation has been rejected by the respondents after holding that in a sensitive area where a unauthorized entry is prohibited, a disciplined members of force is not expected to behave or perform in such a manner which is detrimental to the security interest, if these aspects are taken note of the action of the respondents and the administrative decision taken by them cannot be termed as perverse or illegal in any manner whatsoever warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and statements of various witnesses as indicated hereinabove this Court does not find any merit in the contention raised by Shri p. N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner. Even though there are some minor discrepancies, the same is not so serious or so apparent to hold that the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner is false and fabricated. Petitioner has permitted a unauthorized person to come to his barrack in the manner as has been found and proved in the enquiry, that being so petitioner is not entitled to any relief now in this proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the reasons and ground already indicated hereinabove. Accordingly finding no case made out for interference in the matter and finding no merit in the contentions raised by Shri P. N. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of which relief can be granted to the petitioner. ( 13. ) PETITION stands dismissed without any order so as to costs. Petition dismissed.