JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order being No. D.IX-19/2003-CRC, dated 4.1.2008, issued by the Addl. DIG (Pers-I), for imposing the penalty to the petitioner by reducing to the lowest stage of Rs. 10,000/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200/- per month for a period of three years with effect from the date of issue of the order with further direction that he (writ petitioner) will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of three years, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. 2. Heard Mr. M. Devananda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. C. Komal, learned CGSC appearing for the respondents. 3. A brief fact, leading to the filing of the present writ petition is noted: The writ petitioner, Dy. Commandant, CRPF, 1st Bn. (located in Tripura) was staying in a room of a quarter having common corridor, and adjacent to the room being occupied by Dr. B.S. Poonia, CMO of 1st Bn. CRPF and his wife Smt. Poonam Poonia. The petitioner was functioning as adjutant besides QM/MTO (CO). For an incident on 19.6.2003, Smt. Poonam Poonia, W/o Dr. B.S. Poonia, CMO of 1st Bn. CRPF made a complaint dated 22.6.2003 to the DG, CRPF CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, alleging that on 19.6.2003 at about 1300 hours the petitioner came to the room occupied by Dr. B.S. Poonia while she was alone at the residence and her husband (Dr. B.S. Poonia) was away on duty to 5th Bn. CRPF Agartala. The petitioner entered the room and bolted the door from inside with bad intentions indulging obnoxious behaviour by talking to her (Smt. Poonam Poonia) unwarranted things about sex and conjugal life with her husband. In the morning of the very day, the petitioner had visited her room without knocking at the door when she was alone, but the petitioner left after wishing her and enquiring about her and her husband's wellbeing. For easy reference, the said complaint dated 22.6.2003 filed by Smt. Poonam Poonia to the DG, CRPF CGO Complex, New Delhi is quoted below: To The DG CRPF CGO Complex, Lodhi Road N/Delhi. Subject : Attempt to rape and shock of my self respect R/Sir, With due request I Mrs. Poonam Poonia W/o Dr. For easy reference, the said complaint dated 22.6.2003 filed by Smt. Poonam Poonia to the DG, CRPF CGO Complex, New Delhi is quoted below: To The DG CRPF CGO Complex, Lodhi Road N/Delhi. Subject : Attempt to rape and shock of my self respect R/Sir, With due request I Mrs. Poonam Poonia W/o Dr. B.S. Poonia CMO 1st Bn. living with my husband at T.E. College Jirania (Officer Mess). On 19.6.2003 Thursday I was seated in my room at about 0900 hrs that time my husband was went to M.I. Room duty at 5th Bn. Agartala which he was attended twice in a week. That time Mr. N.K. Kasav D/C 1st Bn. enter in my room without knocking the door and asked how are Dr. Sir and he was see the watch and told I am getting late so I will come in after noon to talk to you something and he went out and in after noon at about 1300 hrs he knocked the back side door of my room which is adjoining his room which I could not heard that's why I did not open the door. Then he knocked the front door. I though my S/Aid have come, so I opened the door, as I open the door Mr. Kasav came ahead so I step back. Then immediately Mr. Kasav put the latch of the door. So I afraid what happen suddenly I asked why are you putting latch then he said I want talk something to you. Then I told, you can talk in the open doors and I came ahead and open the door. I had collect some courage and told yes tell me what you want to talk with me. Due to open the door he seat on the chair which was kept near the bed and started to unwanted talk and after some time he get up and started to go out and told me I wanted to tell you this matter don't discuss with Dr. Punia and left. Sir, I have discusses all this matter with my husband when he return back from duty at 0700 pm. After heard, he surprised (SIC) and worried and try to contact with the Commandant (Mr. Mukherjee) who had gone on coy visit. But could not contact with phone. After lot of consideration, my husband Dr. Punia contact with DIG (OPS) (Mr. Sir, I have discusses all this matter with my husband when he return back from duty at 0700 pm. After heard, he surprised (SIC) and worried and try to contact with the Commandant (Mr. Mukherjee) who had gone on coy visit. But could not contact with phone. After lot of consideration, my husband Dr. Punia contact with DIG (OPS) (Mr. Dey) on telephone and stated all above matter. Next day dated 20.6.2003 about 0945 hrs myself and my husband call by Commandant (SIC) (Mr. Mukherjee) in to the mess. I told all this talk (matter) to the Commandant my husband wanted to lodge FIR in Police Station and informed to all superior officer. Then he refuted to do this and said I have solve the matter in my level otherwise you will be defame. But my husband was not agreed this and went to office and in evening at about 0500 pm DIGP Sir is came in Mess and call me in mess and asked the matter, which I fully explain to him. That time my husband was went to lodge FIR in Jirania without information to anyone and purchase of some medicine for me because due to worry on this incident my health condition was not well. In between, Commandant Sir take my husband from Jirania turning point to Agartala and further proceeded to G.B. Hospital, Agartala and medically examined, in which report come normal and my husband also wanted to lodge FIR at Agartala Police Station which was not considered by police station. Sir, This is a very serious matter in which trying to save delinquent and trying to trap my husband without any reason. My husband also try to informed (SIC) you through signal but which was not passed. Sir, With due respect I request you kindly to do justice. Me and my husband feels shame and unprotected here. Hence please transfer my husband to other place. Thanking you, Sd/-22.6.2003 Poonam Poonia, W/o Dr. B.S. Punia, CMO 1st Bn. Jirania, Tripura. 4. Vide Directorate General CRPF order No. D.IX-19/2003- CR Cell, dated 24.3.2004, Departmental Enquiry had been ordered against the petitioner-Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant 1st Bn., CRPF. One Shri Mool Chand Panwar Commandant 68 Bn. CRPF was appointed as Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner vide order No. D.IX-19/2003- CR C, dated 26 June, 2004. 4. Vide Directorate General CRPF order No. D.IX-19/2003- CR Cell, dated 24.3.2004, Departmental Enquiry had been ordered against the petitioner-Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant 1st Bn., CRPF. One Shri Mool Chand Panwar Commandant 68 Bn. CRPF was appointed as Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner vide order No. D.IX-19/2003- CR C, dated 26 June, 2004. Subsequently, due to some administrative reasons, one M.S. Shekhawat, Commandant, 23rd Bn. CRPF had been appointed as Inquiring Authority vide order No. D.IX-19/2003-CR C Dte. Genl., CRPF Government of India, MHA, New Delhi, dated 17.8.2004. The copy of the memo of charge containing the article of charge, statement of imputations, list of documents by which the article of charge proposed to be substantiated, were also furnished to the petitioner and the petitioner also filed his written statement of defence to the Addl. DIG (Pers-I) in reply to the memo of charge. The article of charge and statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour framed against the writ petitioner are as follows: The article of charge and the statement of imputations of misconduct framed against Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant 1st Bn. CRPF are as follows: ANNEXURE-I ARTICLE OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SHRI N.K. KASVA DEPUTY COMMANDANT, 1ST BN, CRPF. ARTICLE-I Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant, while posted and functioning as Adjutant, QM/MTO 1st Bn, CRPF Tripura during June, 2003 committed a serious misconduct in that on 19.6.2003 at around 1300 hours in the absence of Dr. B.S. Poonia when Smti. Poonia wife of the doctor was alone in the residence entered the said residence and bolted the door from inside with bad intention and indulged in unbecoming obnoxious behavior by talking to Smt. Poonia, unwarranted things about sex and conjugal life with her husband. Thus, the said Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ANNEXURE-II STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI N.K. KASAV DY. COMDT., 1ST BN. CRPF. Article-I Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant, while posted in 1st Bn, CRPF was staying in a room of quarter having common corridor and adjacent to the room being occupied by Dr. ANNEXURE-II STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI N.K. KASAV DY. COMDT., 1ST BN. CRPF. Article-I Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant, while posted in 1st Bn, CRPF was staying in a room of quarter having common corridor and adjacent to the room being occupied by Dr. B.S. Poonia CMO of 1st Bn, CRPF and his wife Poonam Poonia, Shri N.K. Kadav Dy. Commandant While functioning as Adjutant, QM/MTO of 1st Bn, CRPF, Tripura, on 19.6.2003 at about 1300 hrs. when Dr. B.S. Poonia, CMO was away on duty at 5 Bn, CRPF Agartala and Smt. Poonam Poonia, wife of doctor was alone in the residence knocked the door and on being opened the door by Smt. Poonam Poonia, the officer immediately entered the room and bolted it from inside with some bad intention. He further sat on a chair in the room and indulged in unbecoming obnoxious behavior by talking to Smt. Poonam Poonia unwarranted things about sex and conjugal life with her husband besides appreciating her beauty. Smt. Poonam Poonia immediately unbolted the door and reopened it to avoid an unpleasant situation. His unauthorized entry into the room of lady wife of an officer without being permitted by the lady and bolting the door from inside, such an act on the part of Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant speaks of his insincerity towards his official status being Adjutant, QM/MTO of the unit, especially when the unit deployed on ops area. Thus, the said officer, Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant failed to maintain absolute integrity, committed an act of misconduct and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violated provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 3. DOCUMENTS List of documents by which the article of charges are proposed to be substainted are as follows: (i) Complaint dated 22.6.2003 submitted to DG, CRPF (in Hindi) by Smt. Poonam Poonia wife of Dr. B.S. Poonia. (ii) Complaint of Dr. B.S. Poonia, dated 21.6.2003 address to the Commandant, 1st Bn, CRPF. (iii) Any other documents/evidences found related to the incident. 5. In the written statement of defence filed by the petitioner, it was stated that the complaint made by Smt. Poonam Poonia and Dr. B.S. Poonia are baseless, false and fabricated with ulterior motive in order to take revenge against him as Dr. (iii) Any other documents/evidences found related to the incident. 5. In the written statement of defence filed by the petitioner, it was stated that the complaint made by Smt. Poonam Poonia and Dr. B.S. Poonia are baseless, false and fabricated with ulterior motive in order to take revenge against him as Dr. B.S. Poonia felt insulted because of repeated efforts of the writ petitioner to control him whenever he created nuisances after consuming liquor. Hence, Dr. B.S. Poonia used his wife to put blame on the writ petitioner under threat to which she succumbed and gave a complaint against the writ petitioner so that he is not able to get his promotion. The petitioner further brought out in his written statement. of defence that- .... if the allegation are believed to be correct than: (i) Why Mrs. Poonam Poonia did not raise a alarm. (ii) Why she did not immediately contact her husband on P & T Telephone which was readily available in the GO's mess. (iii) Why she did not call the GO's mess staff/her Security Aid at that time. (iv) Why she did not report the matter to commandant immediately. (v) Dr. Poonia returned to 1st Bn. GO's mess at 1945 hrs., where as he started shouting under influence of alcohol only at 2230 hrs. (vi) Why Dr. Poonia did not lodge a FIR in the police station. (vii) Why Mrs. Poonia did not run away from the room after unbolting the room instead of standing in the room, if she doubted the intention of Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant. (viii) Hence Dr. Poonia has used his wife to square up with him as he was regularly threatening Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant that he will spoil his career and will stop his promotion. (ix) On 19.6.2003 Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant was in his office from 0930 hrs. to 1330 hrs. and came to his room in officer's mess only after 1330 hrs. 6. To substantiate the charge levelled against the petitioner, seven witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded in presence of the petitioner and the Presenting Officer. The petitioner was provided full opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and copy of the statements of all the prosecution witnesses and exhibits were handed over to the charged officer. The seven prosecution witnesses are- 1. Smt. Poonam State witness Poonia W/o Dr. The petitioner was provided full opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and copy of the statements of all the prosecution witnesses and exhibits were handed over to the charged officer. The seven prosecution witnesses are- 1. Smt. Poonam State witness Poonia W/o Dr. No. 1 B.S. Poonia CMO 107 Bn, CRPF. 2. Dr. B.S. Poonia State witness CMO 107 Bn, CRPF. No. 2 3. No. 850791695 State witness HC/GD G.N. Bar- No.3 man (Mess Comdr.) 1st Bn, CRPF. 4. No. 801130263 State witness CT/GD CH. Nages- No.4 war Rao, 1st Bn, CRPF. 5. No. 810712546 State witness CT/GD Chandan No.5 Singh 1st Bn, CRPF. 6. No. 950340016 State witness Cook, Vishnu Ku- No.6 mar 1st Bn, CRPF. 7. Shri S. Mukher- State witness jee Commandant No.7 1st Bn, CRPF., now Addl. DIGP. The petitioner, in support of his case had also examined four defence witnesses, namely, 1. No. 961110212 Office Run CT/GD Ramesh ner) Singh 1st Bn, CRPF. 2. No 850331865 QMC) HC/GD Arun Patha- rawat 1st Bn, CRPF 3. No. 850792335 (Signal Opera- HC/GD B.K. Shar tor) ma 1st Bn, CRPF. 4. No. 015222191 (Sentry CT/GD Manoj Ku- officrer’s mess mar 1st Bn, CRPF. dtd. 19.6.2003 available be- tween 1300 hrs to 1400 hrs.). 7. The Inquiring Officer, after completion of inquiry, submitted a report dated 29.8.2006 to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Addl. DIG (Pers-I) with the finding/conclusion that- After astute analysis of all the statements of prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses, prosecution and defence exhibit, examination of charged officer along with detailed study of written brief by the prosecution and defence, the inquiring authority concludes the following: That the charge levelled against Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Comdt. vide letter No. D.IX-19/2003-CR Cell dated 24th March, 2004 in Annexure-I (Article-I) and Annexure-II (Article-I), that Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Comdt. while posted in 1st Bn. CRPF was staying in a room of quarter having common corridor and adjacent to the room being occupied by Dr. B.S. Poonia CMO of 1st Bn. CRPF and his wife Smt. Poonam Poonia, Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Comdt. while function as Adjutant, QM/MTO of 1st Bn. CRPF, Tripura on 19.6.2003 at about 1300 hrs when Dr. B.S. Poonia CMO was away on duty at 5th Bn. B.S. Poonia CMO of 1st Bn. CRPF and his wife Smt. Poonam Poonia, Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Comdt. while function as Adjutant, QM/MTO of 1st Bn. CRPF, Tripura on 19.6.2003 at about 1300 hrs when Dr. B.S. Poonia CMO was away on duty at 5th Bn. CRPF, Agartala and Smt. Poonam Poonia, wife of doctor was alone in the residence knocked the door and on being opened the door by Smt. Poonam Poonia, the officer immediately entered the room and bolted it from inside with some bad intention. He further sat on a chair in the room and indulged in unbecoming obnoxious behavior by talking to Smt. Poonam Poonia unwarranted things about sex and conjugal life with her husband besides appreciating her beauty. Smt. Poonam Poonia immediately unbolted the door and reopened it to avoid any unpleasant situation. His unauthorized entry into the room of lady wife of an officer without being permitted by the lady and bolting the door from inside, such an act on the part of Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Comdt. speaks of his insincerity towards his official status, being Adjutant, QM/MTO of the Unit, especially when the unit deployed in ops area. Thus, the said officer Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Comdt. failed to maintain absolute integrity, committed an act of misconduct and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violated provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 stands not proved. 8. The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the report submitted by the Inquiring Authority, by giving his reason for tentative disagreement on the report of the Inquiring Officer and, thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority under his letter being No. D.IX-19/2003-CRC, dated 5.12.2006, forwarded to the petitioner a copy of the tentative disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority on the report of the Inquiring Officer with a direction to submit representation, if any, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the enquiry report so that the Disciplinary Authority may take a suitable decision in due course. The tentative disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority, on the report of the Inquiring Authority, reads as follows: Tentative disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority on the report of Inquiry Officer on the departmental proceedings conducted against Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant CRPF. A major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been conducted against Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant CRPF. A major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 has been conducted against Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant, CRPF on the charge as under vide memorandum No. D.IX-19/2003-CRC dated 24.3.2004: Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Comdt, while posted and functioning as Adjutant, QM/MTO,. 1st Battalion, CRPF, Tripura during 2003 committed a serious misconduct in that on 19.6.2003 at around 1300 hrs in the absence of Dr. B.S. Poonia, CMO when Smt. Poonia wife of the doctor was alone in their residence entered the said residence and bolted the door from inside with bad intentions and indulged in unbecoming obnoxious behavior by talking to Smt. Poonia unwarranted things about sex and conjugal life with her husband. Thus the said Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Since Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant (C/o) has denied the charge levelled against him vide his written statement of defence dated 19.4.2004, Shri MS: Sekhawat, Commandant CRPF has been appointed as IO for an enquiry into the case vide order dated 17.8.2004. Accordingly, the IO has submitted the proceedings of the DE, in which, the IO has concluded that the charge framed against Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant (C/o) has not been proved due to the absence of eye-witness in the case. The Disciplinary Authority (D/A) has gone through the entire proceedings of the DE alongwith the report of the IO on the case and found that the IO had failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly i.e. the statement of the victim Smt. Poonam Poonia wife of Dr. B.S. Poonia and Shri S. Mukherjee, Commandant (SW). In her statement Smt. Poonam Poonia wife of Dr. B.S. Poonia CMO has categorically stated that Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant (C/O) had entered her residence on 19.6.2003 at about 0930 hrs and again 1300 hrs in the absence of her husband Dr. B.S. Poonia. During his second visit to her house he bolted the door from inside and indulged in talking to Smt. Poonam Poonia about unwarranted things about sex and conjugal life with her husband etc. Commandant (C/O) had entered her residence on 19.6.2003 at about 0930 hrs and again 1300 hrs in the absence of her husband Dr. B.S. Poonia. During his second visit to her house he bolted the door from inside and indulged in talking to Smt. Poonam Poonia about unwarranted things about sex and conjugal life with her husband etc. Apart from this, the charged officer has also confessed before his unit Commandant Shri S. Mukherjee (SW) about his entering into the residence of Smt. Poonam Poonia wife of Dr. B.S. Poonia, CMO during his absence of the later. In fact, in such cases, no eye-witnesses will be available and the IO had to apply the principle that of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt/eye witness. The Presenting Officer (P/O) had contended in his written brief that the charge in question against the C/O has been proved relying on the prosecution. On the other hand, the IO held the same as not proved by relying the statement of various DWs and the variations in the timings etc. From the evidence on record, it is an established fact that Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant (C/O) had entered the residence of Dr. B.S. Poonia, CMO of the unit on 19.6.2003 at about 1300 hrs in the absence of the doctor where Smt. Poonam Poonia was alone in the room. There is no doubt about it. The entry of the COP in the given circumstances gives rise to the ill intentions of the CO and leads to believe the statement of Smt. Poonam Poonia that the CO had bolted the door from inside, and started talking to her about matters related to sex and their conjugal life. As such, the D/A in disagreement with the report of the IO tentatively hold the charge framed against Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant, (C/O) as 'Proved'. Sd/- (Ramesh Chandra) DIGP (Pers) 9. In response of the said letter of the Disciplinary Authority dated 5.12.2006, asking the petitioner to submit his representation to the tentative disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority on the report of the Inquiring Officer, the petitioner submitted his detailed representation dated 4.1.2007 to the Addl. DIGP (Pers-I). Since the Commission is required to be consulted under the relevant rules, the Union Public Service Commission was consulted. DIGP (Pers-I). Since the Commission is required to be consulted under the relevant rules, the Union Public Service Commission was consulted. The Union Public Service Commission, under the letter of its Deputy Secretary dated 12.10.2007, to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, informed the advice of the Commission that the ends of justice would be met, if the penalty of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with further direction that the CO (writ petitioner) will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of three years, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. For easy reference, the said letter of the Deputy Secretary of the Union Public Service Commission dated 12.10.2007 is quoted below: Union Public Service Commission (SANGH LOK SEVA AYOG) Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069 Dt. 12.10.2007 To The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, [Attn : Shri B.K. Naskar, Section Officer, Pers-II] Sub : Departmental proceedings held against Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant, CRPF under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter No. D.IX-19/2003- CRC/CRPF dated 25th April, 2007 on the subject mentioned above and to convey the advice of the Commission as under: 2. The Commission note that the DA vide memo No. D.IX-19/2003- CR Cell dated 24.3.2004 instituted departmental proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against Shri N.K. Kasav Dy. Commandant and conveyed to him that it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him in accordance with the procedure laid down in the relevant rules and he was called upon to answer the following article of charge: ARTICLE OF CHARGE Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant, while posed and functioning as Adjutant, QM/MTO 1st Bn. CRPF, Tripura during June, 2003 committed a serious misconduct in that on 19.6.2003 at around 1300 hours in the absence of Dr. BS. Poonia when Smt. Poonam Poonia wife of the doctor was alone in the residence entered the said residence and bolted the door from inside with bad intention and indulged in unbecoming obnoxious behaviour by talking to Smt. Poonam Poonia unwarranted things about sex and conjugal life with her husband. Thus, the said Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. BS. Poonia when Smt. Poonam Poonia wife of the doctor was alone in the residence entered the said residence and bolted the door from inside with bad intention and indulged in unbecoming obnoxious behaviour by talking to Smt. Poonam Poonia unwarranted things about sex and conjugal life with her husband. Thus, the said Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant, failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby violated the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 2.2. A statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of the article of charge was enclosed with the said memo as Annexure II. A list of documents by which and a list of witnesses by whom, the article of charge was proposed to be substantiated were also enclosed with the said charge memo as Annexures III & IV respective. Acknowledging the receipt of the charge-sheet memo, the CO denied the article of charge vide his letter dated 19.4.2004. On denial of the charge, an inquiry was conducted. The IO submitted his report on 29.8.2006 concluding therein that the charge is not proved against the CO. Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the IO. As per rule, the DA forwarded a copy of the IO's report along with his disagreement note vide memo dated 5.12.2006 to the CO for making representation, if any. The CO submitted his representation on 4.1.2007. The DA, after careful consideration of the IO's report, proceedings of inquiry, representation of the CO both on IO's report as well as on disagreement note of DA and all the relevant records/aspects of the case, has come to a conclusion that the charge is proved against the CO and tentatively decided to impose one of the major penalties on the CO. Before passing orders in this regard, the case records have been forwarded to the Commission for their advice. 3. The Commission have examined the case records carefully. Their observations are as under. 4. The Commission observe that briefly the facts of the case are that Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant, CRPF, 1st Bn. (located in Tripura), the CO was staying in a room of a quarter, having common corridor, and adjacent to the room being occupied by Dr. B.S. Poonia, CMO of 1st Bn., CRPF and his wife Smt. Poonam Poonia. 4. The Commission observe that briefly the facts of the case are that Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant, CRPF, 1st Bn. (located in Tripura), the CO was staying in a room of a quarter, having common corridor, and adjacent to the room being occupied by Dr. B.S. Poonia, CMO of 1st Bn., CRPF and his wife Smt. Poonam Poonia. On 19.6.2003, as alleged, at about 1300 hrs. Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant of 1st Bn., CRPF, who was also functioning as Adjutant besides QM/MTO (CO) came into the residence of Dr. B.S. Poonia, who was away on duty to 5th Bn. CRPF, Agartala, while Smt. Poonam Poonia, his wife was alone at the residence. It is alleged that Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant the CO entered the residence and bolted the door from inside with bad intentions and indulged in unbecoming obnoxious behaviour by talking to Smt. Poonam Poonia unwarranted things about sex and conjugal life with her husband. Earlier, on that very morning, as it transpires, the CO had visited Smt. Poonam Poonia at about 0930 hrs without knocking at the door, but left after wishing her and enquiring about her and her husband's wellbeing. At this time also the lady was alone. 5. The Commission observe that in response to the article of charge, served on him, Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant, the CO, made a written submission stating that the complaint made by Smt. Poonam Poonia and Dr. B.S. Poonia was baseless false and fabricated with ulterior motive, because, Dr. B.S. Poonia had felt insulted in view of repeated efforts of the CO to control him when he created a nuisance after consuming liquor. The CO raised the following main points in his written statement. (i) Why Mrs. Poonia did not raise alarm? (ii) Why she did no immediately contact her husband on learned Counsel for the P&T Telephone which was readily available in the GO's mess. (iii) Why she did not call the GO's mess staff/her Security Aid at that time. (iv) Why she did not report the matter to Commandant immediately. (v) Dr. B.S. Poonia returned to 1st Bn. GO's Mess at 1945 hrs. whereas he started shouting under influence of alcohol only at 2230 hrs. (vi) Why Dr. B.S. Poonia did not lodge a FIR in the police station. (vii) Why Mrs. (iv) Why she did not report the matter to Commandant immediately. (v) Dr. B.S. Poonia returned to 1st Bn. GO's Mess at 1945 hrs. whereas he started shouting under influence of alcohol only at 2230 hrs. (vi) Why Dr. B.S. Poonia did not lodge a FIR in the police station. (vii) Why Mrs. Poonia did not run away from the room after unbolting the room instead of standing in the room, if she doubted the intention of Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant. (viii) Hence, Dr. B.S. Poonia has used his wife to square up with him as he was regularly threatening Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant that he will spoil his career and will stop his promotion. (ix) On 19.6.2003 Shri N.K. Kasav, Dy. Commandant was in his office from 0930 hrs. to 1330 hrs. and came to his room in officer's mess only after 1330 hrs. 6. While these points have been accounted for the Commission observe that the incident took place in a CRPF camp in . Tripura on 20.6.2003. The Commission observe that Mrs. Poonia, who got married to Dr. B.S. Poonia only in 1999, has clearly stated that the CO came into the room on 20.6.2003 at about 1300 hrs. and bolted the door from inside and asked her about her conjugal relations with her husband and whether she was satisfied or not etc. Realising the gravity of the situation, Mrs. Poonia had unbolted the door immediately and the verbal exchange took place while she was near the door and the CO was inside sitting on a chair in the room. The Commission observe that Mrs. Poonia's later statement that there was no misbehaviour, has been attempted to be exploited by the CO to his advantage. In the totality of the situation, it appears that Mrs. Poonia is only alluding to the fact that there was no physical molestation or physical unpleasant contact between the two. 7. The Commission observe that as to what was stated by the CO before Mrs. Poonia, when he was inside, can not be corroborated by anyone else. The IO while holding the charge as not proved, has not given due consideration to the statement of the victim but highlighted the fall out of the drunken behaviour of Dr. Poonia and the arguments between the husband and wife. Poonia, when he was inside, can not be corroborated by anyone else. The IO while holding the charge as not proved, has not given due consideration to the statement of the victim but highlighted the fall out of the drunken behaviour of Dr. Poonia and the arguments between the husband and wife. In fact, the Commandant of the CO has also corroborated the version of the victim, which should have been taken into account. 8. The Commission observe that despite the above evidence on record, the IO's conclusion that the charge is not proved, is erroneous and the DA has rightly disagreed with the IO. Analysing the case further, it appears to be arising out of a situation, when a newly married young lady belonging to Ghaziabad (UP) is living in Tripura in a CRPF camp with her husband, whose behavior is somewhat abnormal, she has to face certain social and psychological constraints though she cannot make a show of it, but it comes out in her behavior with her husband after the post drunkenness episode where Dr. Poonia makes a public spectacle of himself. The case records show that it was well known in the entire CRPF Bn. Campus that Dr. Poonia used to drink a lot, and was not sufficiently mature in his behavior. This would have put the lady to some social disadvantage which was attempted to be exploited. The adverse conduct of the CO has to be viewed in that context where he tried to take advantage. The visit in the morning appeared to be of an exploratory nature. 9. In the light of their findings as discussed above and after taking into account all other aspects relevant to the case, the Commission consider that the ends of justice would be met in this if the penalty of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with further direction that the CO will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of three years, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay, be imposed on Shri N.K. Kasav. The Commission advise accordingly. 10. A copy of the order passed by the Ministry in this case maybe endorsed to the Commission for perusal and records., 11. The Commission advise accordingly. 10. A copy of the order passed by the Ministry in this case maybe endorsed to the Commission for perusal and records., 11. The case records as per the list attached are returned herewith. Their receipt may kindly be acknowledged. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (VIJAYBHALIA) DEPUTY SECRETARY TEL: 011-23385516. 10. The Disciplinary Authority, after taking into consideration of the representation dated 4.1.2007 filed by the petitioner to the tentative disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority on the report of the Inquiring Officer, written statement of defence of the petitioner and also the inquiry report and the advice of the Union Public Service Commission, passed the impugned order dated 4.1.2008 for imposing the penalty of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with further direction that the CO will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of three years, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay on the petitioner. 11. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 4.1.2008, also filed a representation dated 10.4.2008 to the President of India, however, it was rejected on 16.6.2008 for that the punishment awarded to him was by the President and as per Rule 22(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, no appeal lies. Hence, the present writ petition. 12. The grounds for assailing the impugned order dated 4.1.2008 in the present writ petition, read as follows: 1. There is no flow in the inquiry officer report based on the evidence he collected, it was erroneously interpreted. 2. The findings of Disciplinary Authority and Commission are merely upon the study of Inquiry Officer report without any further inquiry, their finding is perverse and conjecture. 3. The Disciplinary Authority and Commission, fully knew that promotion of petitioner is postponed during penalty, the penalty is to thwart promotion. 4. The charge of molestation by words is not proved, entry in the morning and afternoon is not the charge which Disciplinary Authority and Commission proved. 5. The complaint of Smt. Poonam Poonia who is depressed of living in a broken house, almost quarrelling daily with her husband is under the pressure of her husband, hence not admissible. 6. The complaint of Dr. 5. The complaint of Smt. Poonam Poonia who is depressed of living in a broken house, almost quarrelling daily with her husband is under the pressure of her husband, hence not admissible. 6. The complaint of Dr. B.S. Poonia, Chief Medical Officer, who is sober most of the time by taking shelter in wine is also not admissible. 7. The Union Public Service Commission has no jurisdiction to disturb the finding of Inquiry Officer, their duty is to consult the imposition of penalty. 8. Molestation is a crime against which police can arrest, hence complainant refuse to lodge an FIR against to the petitioner because there was no molestation. 13. The respondents also filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein it has been pleaded that: ....with regard to para No. 4 of the above heading, the contention of the petitioner is denied. When the petitioner committed the said act of misconduct, there was no one other than the victim present. Hence, only she can state what actually took place during that time. The victim i.e. Smt. Poonam Poonia has already stated in the DE about the incident and the petitioner had cross-examined her thoroughly. The report dated 20.6.2003 of Shri Mukherjee was report based on his assessment of the situation and the same cannot be totally relied upon. The petitioner is trying to use this initial report to prove his innocence. What exactly was stated by the petitioner before the victim cannot be corroborated by anyone else and the victim has clearly stated about the misdemeanor of the petitioner with her. The petitioner has cross-examined her and nothing substantial has come out of the same.... The respondents, in their counter-affidavit also pleaded that the Inquiring Officer had not appreciated the evidence adduced in the inquiry in the right prospective. As such, the Disciplinary Authority tentatively disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer as the enquiry officer had failed to appreciate the evidences on record properly. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority furnished a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer along with disagreement note of the Disciplinary Authority by letter dated 5.12.2006 with a direction to submit representation if any within 15 days to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 4.3.2007. The Disciplinary Authority found nothing new in the representation and tentatively decided to impose major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his representation dated 4.3.2007. The Disciplinary Authority found nothing new in the representation and tentatively decided to impose major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority also considered the report of Enquiry Officer, representation of the petitioner and consulted the UPSC. After the said consultation, the penalty of reduction the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with further direction that the petitioner will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of three years the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay scale was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 4.1.2008. 14. The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena, (1998) 3 SCC 385 , held that the Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the Enquiring Officer and act upon his own conclusion. The only requirement is that the Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. If the Disciplinary Authority gives reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiring Officer, the Court cannot interfere with those findings unless it comes to the conclusion that no reasonable man can come to the said findings. Para-5 of the SCC in M.C. Saxena's case (supra) reads as follows: 5. The grievance of the delinquent Government servant is based upon a thorough misconception about the rights . of the Government servant concerned. It is undisputed that the Enquiring Officer did not rely upon the FSL report on the ground that the procedure prescribed for taking sample have not been followed and therefore exonerated the delinquent Government servant. But the Disciplinary Authority recorded reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiring Officer and held that the charges against the respondent has been established. It is well settled that the Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the Enquiring Officer and act upon his own conclusion, but the only requirement is that the said Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is well settled that the Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the Enquiring Officer and act upon his own conclusion, but the only requirement is that the said Disciplinary Authority must record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. If the Disciplinary Authority gives reasons for disagreeing with the findings of Enquiring Officer then the Court cannot interfere with those findings unless it comes to the conclusion that no reasonable man can come to the said finding. In this view of the matter, the Disciplinary Authority was well within his powers to award punishment on the basis of the findings arrived at by him. We do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the delinquent Government servant that before the Disciplinary Authority proceeds to award punishment, the delinquent Government servant should have been afforded a further opportunity of hearing. As it appears, the punishment of stopping two increments without cumulative effect is a minor punishment under the CCA Rules. Then again the delinquent Government servant filed review petition and the State Government allowed the review petition and reduced the punishment to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. In such circumstances the argument that there has been a gross violation of the principle of natural justice is devoid of force. A set of charges having been framed and the delinquent Government servant having filed his show-cause to the set of charges, the regular enquiry having been held and the Enquiring Officer having recorded his findings and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority having disagreed with the findings by recording the reasons therefore and ultimately awarding minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, there is no procedural irregularity therein nor can it be said that there has been any violation of principle of the natural justice. Thus the punishment imposed upon by the authority has rightly not been interfered with by the High Court. 15. The Apex Court in Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 , held that if the findings of the Enquiry Officer is favourable to the charged officer, the Disciplinary Authority, in case of not accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, shall give an opportunity of representation to the charged officer before finally differing with the findings. v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 , held that if the findings of the Enquiry Officer is favourable to the charged officer, the Disciplinary Authority, in case of not accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, shall give an opportunity of representation to the charged officer before finally differing with the findings. The ratio decidendi of the decision of the Apex Court in Kunj Behari Misra's case (supra) is that the charged officer should be given opportunity of representation to the tentative disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of the Enquiry Officer favourable to the charged officer before taking the final decision. Para-17 of the SCC in Kunj Behari Misra's case (supra) reads as follows: 17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, AIR 1963 SC 1612 : (1964) 2 SCR 1 : (1963) 1 LLJ 295 , quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the Enquiry Officer had given an adverse finding, as per Managing Director, ECU v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L & S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704 the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the Disciplinary Authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the Inquiry Officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the Disciplinary Authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the Disciplinary Authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the Enquiring Officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the Disciplinary Authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When the Enquiring Officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the Disciplinary Authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the inquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the Disciplinary Authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the findings of the Disciplinary Authority." The Apex Court in R.R. Gabhane v. State of M.P. and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 549 , held that it is obligatory for the Disciplinary Authority to communicate reasons for disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer to the delinquent and also the delinquent should be given the opportunity to submit representation to the disagreement before taking the final decision by the Disciplinary Authority. 16. In the case at hand, the petitioner had been given the opportunity to file representation to the tentative disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority on the findings of the report of the Enquiry Officer before taking the final decision. The Apex Court in Union of India and Anr. v. T.V. Patel, (2007) 4 SCC 785 , held that in the case of consultation with the Public Service Commission on all disciplinary matter, supply of copies of the Commission's advice to the delinquent is not mandatory. Non-supplying of copy of the Commission's advice even though against the delinquent to him is not fatal and also non- supplying of copy of the Commission's advice to the delinquent does not afford the delinquent a cause of action in a Court of law. Para Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the SCC in T.V. Patel's case (supra) read as follows: 22. The decision of the Constitution Bench in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 : 1958 SCR 533 was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., (1969) 2 SCC 240 . It was held in para 7 of the judgment as under (SCC p. 243): 7. The decision of the Constitution Bench in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 : 1958 SCR 533 was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Gopal Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., (1969) 2 SCC 240 . It was held in para 7 of the judgment as under (SCC p. 243): 7. It was argued that the impugned order was invalid as it was passed without consulting the State Public Service Commission under Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution. There is no merit in this contention. The case of State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 : 1958 SCR 533 decided that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) were not mandatory and did not confer any rights on the public servant and that the absence of consultation with the State Public Service Commission did not afford him a cause of action. 23. Counsel for the respondent contended that non- supply of a copy of the advice tendered by UPSC before the final order was passed deprived the delinquent officer of making an effective representation and therefore it vitiates the order. To support his contention he referred to the decision of this Court rendered in State Bank of India v. D.C. Aggarwal where this Court held that the Disciplinary Authority, while imposing "punishment, major or minor, cannot act on material which is neither supplied nor shown to the delinquent. Imposition of punishment on an employee, on material which is not only not supplied but not disclosed to him, cannot be countenanced. Procedural fairness is as much essence of right and liberty as the substantive law itself. 24. He also referred to the decision of this Court in MD, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704 where this Court dealt with the non-furnishing of the inquiry report to the delinquent officer. The facts of the aforesaid decision are distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand. The aforesaid decisions are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the case at hand. 25. The facts of the aforesaid decision are distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand. The aforesaid decisions are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the case at hand. 25. In view of the law settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 : 1958 SCR 533 we hold that the provision of Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India are not mandatory and they do not counter any rights on the public servant so that the absence of consultation or any irregularity in consultation process or furnishing a copy of the advice tendered by UPSC, if any, does not afford the delinquent Government servant a cause of action in a Court of law. 17. From the foregoing discussion of the decisions of the Apex Court, it is clear that if the Disciplinary Authority gives reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Court cannot interfere with those findings unless it comes to the conclusion that no reasonable person come to the said finding. 18. This Court, in order to satisfy itself, has given anxious consideration of mind to the statement of the PWs and DWs and also the documents exhibited in the inquiry against the petitioner and also the tentative disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority on the report of the Enquiring Officer as well as the advice of the Public Service Commission, and this Court is of the considered view that conclusions and findings of the Disciplinary Authority and also the advice of the Public Service Commission cannot be said to be the conclusions of an unreasonable person; and that the conclusion and finding of the Disciplinary Authority is based on the evidence available in the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner. 19. The jurisdiction of the High Court for judicial review of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and also the appellate authority in the writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been discussed and decided by the Apex Court in a plethora of cases, some of those will be considered in the appropriate portion of this judgment and order. It is very well settled law that the approach and the objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. It is very well settled law that the approach and the objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. The doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" applicability has no application in the disciplinary enquiry; preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 583 . The para No. 16 of the SCC in Lalit Popli (supra) reads as follows: 16. It is fairly well settled that the approach and objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him, whereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. See State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 : (1996) SCC (L&S) 1455. In case of disciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. 20. From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Lalit Popli (supra), it is clear that the standard of proof in the disciplinary proceeding is not required to the extent "proof beyond doubt" and the technical rules of evidence is not applicable in the disciplinary proceeding. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are enough to arrive at the conclusion that the delinquent has committed the misconduct. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are enough to arrive at the conclusion that the delinquent has committed the misconduct. The Apex Court in Lalit Popli (supra) further held that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does into act as an appellate authority and its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice; judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority. 21. The Apex Court in Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF and Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 541 held that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision making process and not the conclusion. The Courts should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. The Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. In the present case, it is not the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that there is deficiency in decision making process but the case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate authority are not based on materials or evidence and, as such, this Court has to see by exercising limited jurisdiction of judicial review within the parameters permitted by the law as to whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate authority are based on materials. For exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review it may conveniently refer to some of the decisions of the Apex Court in the following paragraphs. 22. For exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review it may conveniently refer to some of the decisions of the Apex Court in the following paragraphs. 22. The Apex Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625 , held that the High Court appears to have overlooked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact finding authorities. Once findings of facts, based on appreciation of evidence recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds the recorded findings were 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 does not sit as appellate authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speak to substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is considered, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. 23. The Apex Court again in The High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Sashikant S. Patil and Anr., AIR 2000 SC 22 held in para Nos. 19 and 21 as follows: 19. The reasoning of the High Court that when the Disciplinary Committee differed from the finding of the Inquiry Officer it is imperative to discuss the materials in detail and contest the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer, is quite unsound and contrary to the established principles in administrative law. The Disciplinary Committee was neither an appellate nor a revisional body over the Inquiry Officer's report. The Disciplinary Committee was neither an appellate nor a revisional body over the Inquiry Officer's report. It must be borne in mind that the inquiry is primarily intended to afford the delinquent officer a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made against him and also to afford the punishing authority with the materials collected in some inquiry as well as the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer thereon. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are only his opinion on the materials, but such findings are not binding on the Disciplinary Authority as the decision making authority is the punishing authority and, therefore, that authority can come to its own conclusion, of course bearing in mind the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer. But it is not necessary that the Disciplinary Authority should "discuss materials in detail and contest the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer". Otherwise the position of the Disciplinary Authority would get relegated to a subordinate level. 21. Thus the Division Bench of the High Court has not approached the question from the correct angle which is evident when the Bench said that it is imperative for the Disciplinary Committee to discuss materials in detail and contest conclusions of the Inquiry Officer. The interference so made by the Division Bench with a well considered order passed by the High Court on the administrative side was by overstepping its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 24. On perusal of the finding of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the advice of the Union Public Service Commission and the report of the Enquiring Officer, keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases discussed above and also the circumscribed jurisdiction of this Court for judicial review of the finding of the Disciplinary Authority, this Court is of the firm view that the finding of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the advice of the Union Public Service Commission are based on evidence and cannot be said to be the finding of an unreasonable person. As such, the writ petitioner had utterly failed to make out a case for interfering with the impugned order dated 4.1.2008. 25. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed