JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER) 1. The two writ petitions are directed against two orders, both dated 25.8.2009 and the notification dated 5.11.2009 whereby the petitioner, who was, at the relevant time, a Judge in the labour Court, has been ordered to be compulsorily retired pursuant to two separate departmental proceedings by way of inquiry No.16 of 2001 and No. 6 of 2002 in connection with two charge sheets dated 19.12.2001 and 17.9.2002. 1.1 Rule. The learned Counsel for respondents have waived the service and with consent of respondents the matter is taken up, at petitioner's request, for final decision. In view of the facts of the case, and since the petitioner in both the petitions is the same officer, both the petitions are decided by this common order. The learned advocates of the parties to the proceedings have made submissions accordingly. 2. The petitioner has challenged the orders of compulsory retirement contending that the orders are unfair and the conclusions of the inquiry officers holding him guilty of the alleged misconduct are not supported by any cogent evidence. 2.1 The relevant facts which emerge from the record are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Judge, labour Court by notification dated 11.7.1994. He was initially appointed on probation for two years. At the relevant time the petitioner was working as a Judge, labour Court Jamnagar. 2.2 While the petitioner was posted at Jamnagar, during the period from 8.12.1997 to 10.6.2001, certain complaints were filed against him. Having regard to the complaints the High Court (on the administrative side) decided to hold Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner and the charge sheet dated 19.12.2001 came to be issued. 2.3 Besides the complaint/s in view of which the said charge sheet dated 19.12.2001 was issued, certain other complaints (including some anonymous applications) against the petitioner were also received in connection with which decision to conduct departmental inquiry was taken and separate charge sheet dated 17.9.2002 was issued. 2.4 The charge sheet dated 19.12.2001 (for sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as the “first charge sheet”) contained the charge that the petitioner got the judgment dated 4.6.2001 in Reference (L.C.J.) No.1725 of 1990 typed by someone else outside the Court and pronounced the same on 4.6.2001 though he was on casual leave and not in the headquarter during the period between 3.6.2001 and 5.6.2001. The said charge sheet culminated into Department Inquiry No. 16 of 2001. It was, inter alia, stated in the charge sheet that:- “While you were working as Judge, Labour Court, Jamnagar from 8.12.1997 to 10.6.2001:-In Reference (L.C.J.) Case No.1725/90 filed by Mr.V.N.Shah against M/s Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd., Mithapur, District Jamnagar, for reinstatement in service and for the recovery of the dues, after completion of evidence, the opponent company, had submitted its written argument on 4.5.2001 at Exhibit-46 whereas Mr. J.N. Shah, advocate for the applicant submitted his written arguments on 22.5.2001 at Exhibit-48 along with the pursis dated 22.5.2001 (Exhibit-47) and thereafter, the said matter was kept for pronouncement of judgment. As per the report, the Stenographer of the Labour Court, Jamnagar was on commuted leave during the period between 29.5.2001 and 7.6.2001 therefore, there is a reason to believe that you got typed the judgment dated 4.6.2001 of the said Reference (L.C.J.) Case No.1725/90, from someone else, out side the Court ant pronounced the same on 4.6.2001, though you were on casual leave on 4.6.2001 and not in headquarter during the period between 3.6.2001 and 5.6.2001 and thereby: You acted in a manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. These acts of yours, amount to acts of grave misconduct and tantamount to conduct unbecoming of a Judicial Officer violating the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971.” 2.5 The petitioner submitted his reply dated 28.1.2002 and denied the allegations and charges levelled against him. The petitioner, inter alia, contended that by office order dated 5.5.2001 he was directed to complete the pending awards – orders by 10th June 2001 and that therefore he had prepared handwritten award and while putting his signature the said date was mentioned. During the proceedings 3 witnesses namely Mr. V.N. Shah, Mr. Dave, and Mr. J.N. Shah were dropped by the presenting officer since even after several intimations to appear before the inquiry officer, the said witnesses did not appear for their statement. The presenting officer examined the registrar of Industrial Court and One Mr. Raichura advocate/ representative of the union. The petitioner got his own statement recorded, however he did not examine any witness. J.N. Shah were dropped by the presenting officer since even after several intimations to appear before the inquiry officer, the said witnesses did not appear for their statement. The presenting officer examined the registrar of Industrial Court and One Mr. Raichura advocate/ representative of the union. The petitioner got his own statement recorded, however he did not examine any witness. The petitioner had filed his statement of defence and he also produced, on record of the inquiry proceedings certain documents on which he relied e.g. the photocopy of handwritten award in reference No.1725 of 1990, copies of statements by typists namely Mr.K.T. Makwana, Mr.D.K. Zala and Stenographer Mr. S.P. Jadeja recorded in inquiry No.6 of 2002. 2.6 After completion of the stage of evidence and arguments and upon considering the material on record, in his report dated 31.7.2004 the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner was partly proved inasmuch as according to his conclusions it was established that the delinquent (i.e. the petitioner) had got the award in Reference No.1725 of 1990 typed from someone else outside the Court and that it was also established that the delinquent was on casual leave on 4.6.2001 and was not in headquarter during the period between 3.6.2001 and 5.6.2001. The inquiry officer also held that it was, however, not proved that the judgment was “pronounced” on 4.6.2001. The inquiry officer concluded his report thus:- “42. Now concluding the discussion, in my view, the Disciplinary Authority has partly proved the charge leveled against the delinquent and thereby it has established that the delinquent has committed act of grave misconduct and it tantamount to conduct of unbecoming of a Judicial Officer violating the provisions contained in Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rule 1971.” 2.7 The said report and the record of the inquiry proceedings pertaining to Departmental Inquiry No.16 of 2001 were considered by the High Court. The High Court being in agreement with the reasons recorded and the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer, came to the tentative conclusion as regards penalty and to issue Notice to the petitioner inviting explanation as to why, considering the seriousness of charges, major penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed. The High Court being in agreement with the reasons recorded and the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer, came to the tentative conclusion as regards penalty and to issue Notice to the petitioner inviting explanation as to why, considering the seriousness of charges, major penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed. Accordingly the Notice along with the tentative conclusion dated 15.1.2005 and the report dated 31.7.2004 by the inquiry officer, was issued and served on the petitioner. 2.8 The petitioner responded to the said Notice through his reply dated 23.2.2005. The High Court considered the reply submitted by the petitioner in light of the record and proceedings of the departmental inquiry and considered the question of quantum of penalty. On consideration of all relevant aspects the High Court came to the conclusion that punishment of compulsory retirement would be commensurate with the charges and gravity of the misconduct. Therefore, by order dated 25.8.2009 penalty of compulsory retirement came to be imposed. In pursuance of the said order of punishment the State Government issued Notification dated 5.11.2009 by which the petitioner is made to compulsory retire. 2.9 Now, so far as the charge sheet dated 17.9.2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “second charge sheet”) is concerned, in all three charges came to be levelled against the petitioner. So far as the first charge is concerned it was, inter alia, stated that:-“Mr. Trivedi maintained homely relations with certain advocates and few advocates are his favourite and he passed favourable orders in the matters of his clients.” As regards the second charge it was stated that:- “Mr. Trivedi being an experienced Judge of Labour Court was fully aware of the fact that dictation of judgment is a very confidential work, which requires secrecy. But Mr. Trivedi, with an oblique motive and to favour some advocates, though facility of computer is not provided either in the office or at his residence and though stenographer Mr. H.B. Jadeja was on leave from 30.5.2001 to 7.6.2001, judgment of L.D. Complaint No.26/2000, Reference No.169/98 to 188/98, Workemans Compensation Application No.36/2000 and 15/96, were not dictated and were prepared outside the Court and prepared elsewhere i.e. at the office of the advocate and these judgments are typed in English language and also got typed on computer. Mr. H.B. Jadeja was on leave from 30.5.2001 to 7.6.2001, judgment of L.D. Complaint No.26/2000, Reference No.169/98 to 188/98, Workemans Compensation Application No.36/2000 and 15/96, were not dictated and were prepared outside the Court and prepared elsewhere i.e. at the office of the advocate and these judgments are typed in English language and also got typed on computer. Mr. Trivedi, with an oblique motive though the stenographer provided for the Court working was Gujarati Stenographer and who was also on leave from 29.5.2001 to 7.6.2001 only one judgment of Recovery Application No.2/91 was got typed though Mr. K.P.Makwana, Clerk cum Typist and no typing work was got done through Mr. D.K. Jhala, Clerk cum Typist during this period and following judgments were prepared elsewhere and got typed through third party and also at the office of advocate and thereafter judgments were delivered during the aforesaid period. 1. Recovery Application No.2/91 2. Workmen compensation Application No.194/93 dated 7.6.2001. 3. Reference No.184/99 dated 1.6.2001 4. Workmen Compensation Application No.90/98, dated 1.6.2001. 5. Reference No.212/91, dated 1.6.2001. 6. Reference No.144 /91, dated 1.6.2001. Mr. Trivedi with an oblique motive, through he was on leave (C.L.) for the period from 3.6.2001 to 5.6.2001 i.e. for 3 days, one judgment in Reference No.1725/90, which was not typed either by Stenographer or other Clerks, was got elsewhere typed and was signed and pronounced on 4.6.2001.” 2.10 So far as the 3rd charge is concerned, it was, inter alia, alleged that with oblique motive and without adopting procedure prescribed under Rule 28 of the Rules framed under the provision of Workmen’s Compensation Act and without framing issues regarding penalty, the petitioner issued separate Notices to the employers, after disposal of the main petition and such Notices were discharged as soon as reply by the employer was filed and discharge orders were passed lightly. As many as 14 instances were cited in which such notices were issued and orders were passed. It was further stated in the charge sheet that:- “Thus, the manner and mode in which Mr. As many as 14 instances were cited in which such notices were issued and orders were passed. It was further stated in the charge sheet that:- “Thus, the manner and mode in which Mr. Trivedi issued show cause notice for imposing penalty and the mode in which it were disposed off shows that, he passed the orders in the above mentioned matters for consideration other than a Judicial one and the manner and mode in which he got the judgments typed out side the Court premises i.e. in the office of advocate and got typed on computer and the manner in which he pronounced the judgment on a day on which he was on leave shows that he acted for consideration other than judicial one and thereby:- 1. Mr. A.R. Trivedi is guilty of indulging in corrupt practices: 2. Mr. A.R. Trivedi is guilty of dereliction in discharging his judicial functions: 3. Mr. A.R. Trivedi is guilty of aforesaid acts of misconduct: 4. Mr. A.R. Trivedi acted in a manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.” 2.11 The petitioner responded to the said charge-sheet by tendering his reply dated 13.12.2002 whereby he denied the allegations and contended that the charge and allegations, in particular the allegation that he maintained homely relation with certain advocates and few advocates were his favourite and he passed favourable orders in the matters of their clients, was vague and cannot be effectively defended. He denied that he had violated secrecy in dictation of award. He claimed that the allegations with reference to the award made in reference No.1725 of 1990 was also the subject matter of another charge-sheet. The said second charge-sheet culminated into departmental proceedings being Inquiry No.6 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “second inquiry”). 2.12 During the proceedings of the said second inquiry the presenting officer produced on record the anonymous applications dated 10.3.2000, 13.1.2001, 8.2.2001, 7.6.2001 report dated 29.3.2001 made by the president of the Industrial Court application dated 17.3.2001 given by Mr. Jadeja and an application given by Mr. Arvindbhai Vyas and statement of Stenographer Mr. H.B. Jhadeja. About 6 witnesses namely Mr. Acharya, President Industrial Court, Mr.Kateria, Registrar Industrial Court, G.P. Parmar, Superintendent labour Court, Mr. Makwana and Mr. Jhala, Clerk cum Typist, Mr. Jhadeja, Stenographer, Mr. Vyas of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh and Mr. Deepak Trivedi of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh were examined. Arvindbhai Vyas and statement of Stenographer Mr. H.B. Jhadeja. About 6 witnesses namely Mr. Acharya, President Industrial Court, Mr.Kateria, Registrar Industrial Court, G.P. Parmar, Superintendent labour Court, Mr. Makwana and Mr. Jhala, Clerk cum Typist, Mr. Jhadeja, Stenographer, Mr. Vyas of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh and Mr. Deepak Trivedi of Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh were examined. The petitioner submitted his statement of defence and examined himself before the inquiry officer. He, however, did not examine any other witnesses. The petitioner produced on record, several documents of which reference has been made by the inquiry officer in para 33 of his report. Upon conclusion of the stage of evidence and arguments, the inquiry officer considered the material available on record before him and after evaluating the evidence, came to the conclusion in his report that the charge No.1 and No.3 were “not proved” but the charge No.2 was “partly proved”. The inquiry officer concluded his report dated 21.9.2004 with following conclusions:- 83. In view of foregoing discussion, looking to the evidence and appreciating the evidence produced on record and considering the submissions, my findings to the above article of charges are as under:- (1) Notproved. (2) Partly proved. (3) Notproved.” 2.13 The inquiry officer's report dated 21.9.2004 was considered by the High Court. Upon consideration of the record of the said inquiry No. 6 of 2002 and the discussion by the inquiry officer and his conclusions in his report dated 21.9.2004, the High Court agreed with the reasons and conclusions and having regard to the record of the proceedings, the report and the gravity of the charges came to the tentative conclusion as regards punishment and to issue Notice inviting explanation as to why major penalty of dismissal be not imposed. 2.14 Thus, Notice along with the copy of the inquiry officer’s report and the tentative decision of the High Court was issued on 15.1.2005. The petitioner responded to the said notice by his reply dated 23.2.2005 contending, inter alia, that the conclusions by the inquiry officer, so far as charge No.2 is concerned, was unjustified and erroneous and was contrary to or was without any support of evidence. He submitted that the chargesheet and the proceedings may be dropped and he may be exonerated. The entire material including the petitioner’s reply dated 23.2.2005 was considered by the High Court. He submitted that the chargesheet and the proceedings may be dropped and he may be exonerated. The entire material including the petitioner’s reply dated 23.2.2005 was considered by the High Court. Having regard to all relevant aspects penalty of compulsory retirement was considered commensurate with the charges and gravity of the misconduct. Thus, vide order dated 25.8.2009 it was ordered that:- “23. Accordingly the punishment of compulsory retirement be imposed on Mr. A.R. Trivedi, the then Judge, Labour Court, Jamnagar, with immediate effect” Then the state government issued requisite notification dated 5.11.2009. Accordingly the petitioner has been compulsorily retired. 2.15 Aggrieved by the said orders dated 25.8.2009 the petitioner has preferred the captioned two petitions seeking, inter alia, that:- “7(A) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order, direction to quash and set aside the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 25.8.2009 (final order dated 4.8.2009) passed by the Registrar (Law and Enquiry) of this Hon’ble Court (on its administrative side) as well as the Notification Bearing No.ICE-102009-3272-D issued by the Government of Gujarat, Legal Department dated 5.11.2009 at Annexure G (Colly) to this petition. (B)……… (C)…….. (D)……..” The substantive and main relief/s prayed for in both the petitions are similar. 3. Mr. Upadhyay, learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner and Mr.Shalin Mehta, learned advocate has appeared for the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat respondent No.2 and learned AGP has appeared for respondent No.1-State of Gujarat. We have heard the learned Counsel and carefully examined the record of both the petitions. 3.1 Mr. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders of compulsory retirement are unjustified and the High Court on its administrative side has erred in accepting the report and conclusions of the inquiry officer. He also submitted that the conclusions of the inquiry officer are not based on any cogent evidence but are mere inferences and should not have been accepted by the High Court. Mr. He also submitted that the conclusions of the inquiry officer are not based on any cogent evidence but are mere inferences and should not have been accepted by the High Court. Mr. Upadhyay referring to the allegations and charge levelled against the petitioner vide first Chargesheet submitted that the inquiry officer erred in concluding that the petitioner had got typed the award in Reference No.1725/90 from someone else outside the Court and that the inquiry officer also erred in not accepting the submission of the petitioner that in view of the office order 5.5.2001 asking the petitioner to complete the remaining awards by 10.6.2001 the petitioner had completed the said award in his handwriting and then got it typed through one of the employees working on the establishment and it could not have been concluded that the award was prepared outside the Court through someone else. He also submitted that there was no reason or justification much less contrary evidence to disbelieve the petitioner and his explanation. Mr. Upadhyay referring to the second charge sheet submitted that the inquiry officer has erred in holding that the charge No. II is partly proved. The inquiry officer committed serious error in not believing that the orders / awards referred to under the charge No. II were typed on petitioner’s computer which was supplied to him (i.e. to the petitioner) by his brother. He also submitted that though the presenting officer examined about 8 witnesses he failed to establish the charge and there was no evidence against him. With reference to both the charge sheets the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the inquiry officer erred in holding that the petitioner failed to prove that the awards / orders were not got typed outside the Court or through someone other than Court’s stenographer or typist. He submitted that it was for the presenting officer and the Authority to prove the allegations and the charge and the inquiry officer is not justified in requiring the petitioner to prove his case and / or in holding that the petitioner should prove his defence. Mr. Upadhyaya, also submitted that the petitioner had relied on various decisions by the Apex Court and also by the High Court, however inquiry officer erroneously held that the said decisions were not relevant. Mr. Upadhyaya, also submitted that the petitioner had relied on various decisions by the Apex Court and also by the High Court, however inquiry officer erroneously held that the said decisions were not relevant. He submitted that in view of the material on record of both the inquiry proceedings it emerges and becomes clear that there is no evidence to support and justify the conclusions of the inquiry officer. Mr. Upadhyaya also submitted that any of the allegations and charges cannot be said to have been proved and the petitioner has not committed any misconduct as charged and the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the petitioner may be restored to his post. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 resisted the petitions and supported the reports and conclusions of the inquiry officer as well as the decision of the High Court of agreeing with and accepting the reasoning and conclusion of the inquiry officer and the orders of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. He submitted that it is undisputed position that at the relevant time the establishment of labour Court Jamnagar did not have the facility of computer and that it is also an undisputable position and matter of record that the awards / orders referred to in the first and second chargesheets have been typed and prepared on computer in English / Gujarati languages and that therefore the conclusion of the inquiry officer that the petitioner got the awards orders typed / prepared outside the Court, cannot be faulted and cannot be termed as unjustified or perverse. Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that it is the petitioner who contended and insisted that he (i.e. the petitioner), had facility of computer at his residence and that therefore it was for the petitioner to establish the said fact which the petitioner, however, could not prove. Mr. Mehta also submitted that the submissions and defence of the petitioner is infected by self contradicting submissions and there are several apparently conflicting and contrary submissions made by the petitioner which is evident from the written submissions and / or statements of defence filed by the petitioner before the inquiry officer. Mr. Mr. Mehta also submitted that the submissions and defence of the petitioner is infected by self contradicting submissions and there are several apparently conflicting and contrary submissions made by the petitioner which is evident from the written submissions and / or statements of defence filed by the petitioner before the inquiry officer. Mr. Mehta submitted that the reasons and conclusions recorded by the inquiry officer in his two reports dated 31.7.2004 and 21.9.2004 are based on oral and documentary evidence obtaining on the record of two inquiry proceedings i.e inquiry No.16 of 2001 and inquiry No.6 of 2002 and that the High court has on careful consideration of the record of both the inquiry proceedings and the said two reports of the inquiry officers found that the reasons and conclusions recorded by the inquiry officer are justified and supported by the material on record of the inquiry proceeding and therefore high Court accepted the same. He submitted that having regard to the position held by the petitioner and the gravity of the charges held as proved, High Court, on the administrative side considered it appropriate that penalty of compulsory retirement would be commensurate with the proved charges and that therefore the impugned orders came to be passed which may not be set aside as claimed by the petitioner. 4.1 Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 referring to the allegations and charges in the first chargesheet submitted that the petitioner was on leave during the period from 3.6.2001 to 5.6.2001 and the stenographer of the labour Court also was on commuted leave during the period from 29.5.2001 to 7.6.2001 and it was during the said period that the award in reference No.1725 of 1990 was prepared / typed and signed and in face of the conflicting and self contradicting submissions and defence the inquiry officer did not accept the unsubstantiated explanation of the petitioner, hence his conclusions cannot be faulted the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer cannot be faulted. He submitted that the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the decision of the High Court do not warrant to be set aside. 5. We have considered the submissions and also the record. 6. He submitted that the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the decision of the High Court do not warrant to be set aside. 5. We have considered the submissions and also the record. 6. So far as the first charge sheet and the first inquiry as well as the inquiry officer’s report in connection with the said inquiry, are concerned, it is noticed that the inquiry officer has accepted the petitioner’s explanation and submission that in view of the practice and procedure followed in the labour Court as well as in light of the provisions under Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and the rule farmed there under there is no procedure or requirement of pronouncing the award in the Court and the award is required to be forwarded to the appropriate government for publication. Therefore, there is no need to further deliberate or consider the said allegation and charge or the conclusions of the inquiry officer, more particularly because the High Court on its administrative side, has accepted the said conclusion of the inquiry officer. 7. With regard to the allegations and the charge that he got the said award dated 4.6.2001 in reference No.1725 of 1990 typed from some one else outside the Court, the petitioner appears to have contended that he had handwritten the award and got it typed from employee of the Court. 7.1 In this context it is noticed that in his reply dated 28.1.2002 the petitioner had stated, inter alia, that:- “…...... It may be further pointed out that as there is no pronouncement of “judgment” as alleged, the stenographer / typist would be putting the date and the same date would be found in the award, though it would not be signed on the very day. Actually I have affixed my signature before proceeding on leave.” On the other hand during his statement / oral evidence before the inquiry officer, the petitioner had stated that:- “(3) Or is true that Stenographer of our office was on leave from 29.5.2001 to 7.6.2001. In that matter, I type award. Where the handwriting award at present. I don’t know. I have got the Xerox Copy of the same. I have received the Xerox Copy from the High Court. I will produce it. (4) I received my transfer order during April-2001. In that matter, I type award. Where the handwriting award at present. I don’t know. I have got the Xerox Copy of the same. I have received the Xerox Copy from the High Court. I will produce it. (4) I received my transfer order during April-2001. I have been instructed from the Industrial Court Ahmedabad that before leaving charge, I have to dispose of all the matters taken for orders. Therefore, I disposed of others cases along with Reference No.1725/90. I have not pronounced any judgment on 4.6.2001 or any other date. It is true that award was prepared on 4.6.2001. It is true that I have put my Thereafter, in his defence statement the petitioner, while dealing with the notice dated 15.1.2005 and the reasoning and conclusions of the inquiry officer in his report, stated thus:- “7. While it is true that I had applied for leave for the period from 3.6.2001 to 5.6.2001 and also sought permission to leave headquarter. I prepared award in question in my own handwriting on 4.6.2001 at my residence at Ahmedabad. In fact, I also prepared many other awards / orders in certain other matters in long hand during my leave I resumed duties on 6.6.2001 and the award in question was got typed through Pujara on 6.6.2001. As the handwritten award was prepared on 4.6.2001 and the same was found with the typed copy. As much time had elapsed in between, it appears that there is some advertent slip in mentioning the dates. However, the same is not material at all……..” 7.2 It also deserves to be noted that there is no dispute about the fact that during the period between 3.6.2001 and 5.6.2001 the petitioner was on leave and was not in the headquarter. It is also not in dispute that even the stenographer of the Court was on commuted leave during period between 29.5.2001 and 7.6.2001. There is also no dispute about the fact that the award in reference (LCJ) No.1725 of 1990 bears the date 4.6.2001 i.e. the date on which the petitioner as well as the stenographer of the Court were on leave. There is also no dispute about the fact that the award in reference (LCJ) No.1725 of 1990 bears the date 4.6.2001 i.e. the date on which the petitioner as well as the stenographer of the Court were on leave. It is also not in dispute that the proceedings of the said reference case were closed / concluded on 27.5.2001 and the case was placed for passing of the award and until 3.6.2001 when the petitioner proceeded on leave, the award was not dictated or typed and was not prepared and forwarded. It is also not in dispute that certain application was tendered on 4.6.2001 which, according to the petitioner was rejected on 6.6.2001. 7.3 In this background the petitioner, in his reply dated 28.1.2002, claimed that “therefore I wanted to complete such work in compliance with the said office order, and the award was forwarded on 4.6.2001”. In the very same reply the petitioner also claimed that “actually I have affixed my signature before proceeding on leave” . It is relevant to recall, at this stage, that the petitioner had applied for, and was on leave, from 3.6.2001 since on / from 3.6.2001 he had proceeded on leave. 7.4 Then, in his oral evidence / statement before the inquiry officer the petitioner stated that “it is true that award was prepared on 4.6.2001. It is true that I have put my signature in typed award on 6.6.2001 (while in his above referred reply the petitioner had stated that he had affixed his signature before proceeding on leave and he had proceeded on leave on and from 3.6.2001 i.e. a day prior to 4.6.2001). 7.5 The inquiry officer in his report dated 31.7.2004 recorded, in para 23 of the report, the submission by petitioner’s Counsel which reads thus:- 23. Learned advocate for delinquent Trivedi had submitted that the award in question was handwritten and got typed from a staff of the Court and no date is to be fixed fro pronouncement of the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that the matter was kept for pronouncement of the judgment. It is also submitted that the delinquent had prepared the judgment at his residence, got it typed by a staff member and signed it before proceeding on leave. Therefore, it cannot be said that the award was pronounced when he was on leave. Therefore, it cannot be said that the matter was kept for pronouncement of the judgment. It is also submitted that the delinquent had prepared the judgment at his residence, got it typed by a staff member and signed it before proceeding on leave. Therefore, it cannot be said that the award was pronounced when he was on leave. He has also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has not examined any witness to prove that the staff of the Court did not type the judgment and delinquent got it typed outside. Therefore, the charge is not proved. Thereafter, the inquiry officer has considered and dealt with the submissions and the evidence on record and has observed:- 25. In view of this explanation it appears that the delinquent had prepared the award at his residence and put the date of 4.6.2001, the day on which it was prepared on. The Xerox copy of the handwritten award exh.100 produced by the delinquent bears the date of 4.6.2001. The delinquent has in his examination exh. 99 stated that he had put 4.6.2001 in the handwritten award and it was got typed by Mr. Ashwinbhai Pujara at present working as sub- Accountant in the office. He has also stated that the date on which he had prepared the award was put in the typed award and he does not know about the handwritten copy of the award but he has Xerox copy of the same obtained from the High Court. On perusal of handwritten award exhibit-101, there is nothing to show that the Xerox copy was supplied by the Hon’ble High Court on the request made by the delinquent. The record and proceedings of Reference No.1725/90 exhibit 76A also does not contain the handwritten award. Even there is nothing on record which would suggest that the handwritten copy was in the record and proceedings of Reference No.1725/1990 and the same was taken into the custody of Hon’ble High Court. Moreover, letter seeking leave and permission to leave headquarter exhibit 73 shows that it was written on 4.6.2001 seeking casual leave of 4.6.2001 and permission to leave headquarter for the period from 3.6.2001 to 5.6.2001. It is very strange that the delinquent sought permission to leave headquarter from 3.6.2001 by his letter dated 4.6.2001. Moreover, letter seeking leave and permission to leave headquarter exhibit 73 shows that it was written on 4.6.2001 seeking casual leave of 4.6.2001 and permission to leave headquarter for the period from 3.6.2001 to 5.6.2001. It is very strange that the delinquent sought permission to leave headquarter from 3.6.2001 by his letter dated 4.6.2001. If the delinquent was on leave on 4.6.2001 and out of headquarter from 3.6.2001, how it can be believed that he prepared the award in question on 4.6.2001. Similarly, it is also difficult to believe that he put the date in the handwritten award and the typist typed the same date and he signed the award before proceeding on leave. If the delinquent was on leave on 4.6.2001 how it could be typed by a staff member on the same day and signed by him. The delinquent has also taken contradictory defence by One page is i.e. page No. 18 and paragraph 26 are missing the delinquent had got typed the award with Mr. Pujara. In view of this, the submission of learned advocate Mr. Trivedi that as the Disciplinary Authority has not adduced any evidence to prove that the award was not typed in the Court the charge is not proved cannot be accepted. 27. It is also significant that the delinquent has in his written statement categorically stated that he signed the award before proceeding on leave, while in his statement of defence Exh.97 and oral examination exh.99 he has stated that he had signed the award on 6.6.2001 after resuming the duty. This contradicting leads me to believe that the award was not typed on 4.6.2001. If it is accepted that the delinquent had signed the award before proceeding on leave, it can easily be inferred that the award was typed by some one else outside the Court. 29. The Rajnama of R & P of Reference No.1725 of 1990 exh. 76A shows that the applicant had given application exh.49 on 4.6.2001 and the delinquent had passed an order below the same. According to the delinquent, he had passed the order on 6.6.2001, but the Rojnama does not show that the order was passed on 6.6.2001. The Rojnama does not show that the matter was taken on board and the order was passed by the delinquent. According to the delinquent, he had passed the order on 6.6.2001, but the Rojnama does not show that the order was passed on 6.6.2001. The Rojnama does not show that the matter was taken on board and the order was passed by the delinquent. If the delinquent was on leave and out of headquarter, and his charge was given to other Judge, how could he pass any order on any application moved when he was no leave without reflecting the same in Rojnama? This also shows that the records were not being properly maintained in the Court of the delinquent. Therefore, also it is difficult to believe that the delinquent had signed the award before proceeding on leave. 33…..However, considering the evidence in this case, it is difficult to believe that the delinquent had in order to comply with the direction prepared the award at his residence, got it typed at the office and signed it on 4.6.2001 before proceeding on leave. The delinquent has not adduced any evidence to prove that Mr. Ashwinbhai Poojara in the establishment had typed the award. The delinquent has produced copy of the depositions of typist cum Clerk Mr. K.T. Makwana and Mr. D.K. Jhala at exh.108 and 109 and Stenographer Mr. S.B. Jhadeja at Exh.110. The witness Mr. K.T. Makwana has stated that once, he had typed an order of Recovery Application when Mr. Jhadeja was on leave. However, this statement does not support the defence except that the typist used to type orders when the Stenographer was on leave. The statement of Mr. D.K. Jhala exh.109 also does not support the defence that the award of reference was typed by Mr. Poojara. In the statement of Mr. H.B. Jadeja Exh.110, he has admitted that the delinquent used to give dictation to Mr. Poojara or other typist and used to get typed handwritten orders from them. However, this documentary evidence does not establish that the delinquent got typed the award of the reference with Mr. Poojara….” 7.6 After analyzing the evidence and after detail discussion and after recording reasons for his conclusions, the inquiry officer reached the conclusion that:- “…it is difficult to believe that the delinquent had prepared the award at his residence, put the date of 4.6.2001 in the handwritten award, and the same was got typed by Mr. Poojara in the establishment. Poojara….” 7.6 After analyzing the evidence and after detail discussion and after recording reasons for his conclusions, the inquiry officer reached the conclusion that:- “…it is difficult to believe that the delinquent had prepared the award at his residence, put the date of 4.6.2001 in the handwritten award, and the same was got typed by Mr. Poojara in the establishment. It is also difficult to believe that the typist typed 4.6.2001 as it was written on the handwritten award and the delinquent had signed the same before proceeding on leave. The evidence clearly establish that the delinquent was on casual leave on 4.6.2001 and was out of headquarter from 3.6.2001 to 5.6.2001. Therefore, the award was typed by some one else outside the Court…..” 7.7 It is pertinent that in his written reply dated 28.1.2002 the petitioner claimed that he had put his signature before proceeding on leave. The petitioner also claimed, in his said reply, that the award was forwarded on 4.6.2001 and then in his oral evidence he claimed that he had put signature on typed award on 6.6.2001. It is significant that on one hand petitioner claimed that he signed the award before he proceeded on leave (he proceeded on leave on 3.6.2001) whereas in the oral examination he also claimed that he signed the award on 6.6.2001. The inquiry officer has also noted that an application was given on 4.6.2001 on which according to the petitioner he had passed order on 6.6.2001 however the Rojkam did not show anything to prove that any order was passed on 6.6.2001. The inquiry officer had thus noted that even the record had not been properly maintained. The petitioner placed on record copies of the statements given by certain witnesses in the second inquiry i.e in the inquiry No.6 of 2002. Statements given by Mr. Makwana, Mr. Jhala and Mr. Jadeja in the said second inquiry were produced by the petitioner on record of the first inquiry and petitioner tried to rely on the said statements. The inquiry officer has considered the same and noted that Mr. Makwana had once typed an order but that order was made in recovery application. The inquiry officer also considered the statement of Mr. Jadeja in the said second inquiry were produced by the petitioner on record of the first inquiry and petitioner tried to rely on the said statements. The inquiry officer has considered the same and noted that Mr. Makwana had once typed an order but that order was made in recovery application. The inquiry officer also considered the statement of Mr. Jhala and noted that it does not support the defence / explanation given by the petitioner and then concluded that the said statements and the documentary evidence did not establish that petitioner had got the said award typed by Mr. Poojara. 7.8 The aforesaid discussion and reasons recorded by the inquiry officer clearly give out that the inquiry officer has taken into consideration the entire material – documentary as well as oral evidence – available on record and has also dealt with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and thereafter reached the conclusion that the charge is partly proved. 7.9 So far as the proceedings of departmental inquiry and the evidence therein as well as conclusions of the inquiry officers are concerned that in the departmental inquiry proceedings strict and complete evidence proving the allegations beyond doubt is not necessary and preponderance of probability would also suffice. 7.10 The High Court, on the administrative side considered the entire material including the reply and the defence statement of the petitioner and inquiry officer’s report containing the discussion, reasoning and conclusions and after careful consideration the High Court concurred with the findings of the inquiry officer. 8. We have considered the replies given by the petitioner, his oral examination, the inquiry officer’s report, the tentative decision of the High Court and other material, in light of the contentions raised by the petitioner. After considering the entire material and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner we do not find that the conclusions by the inquiry officer can be considered as perverse or not supported by any evidence or such as could not have been reasonably arrived at. 9. After considering the entire material and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner we do not find that the conclusions by the inquiry officer can be considered as perverse or not supported by any evidence or such as could not have been reasonably arrived at. 9. Ordinarily consideration of the statement / evidence given in separate or another proceedings may not be imported for evaluating the conclusions of inquiry officer in another matter and may not be considered for the said purpose however in present case since it is the petitioner himself who placed some of the statements / evidence from the record of the second inquiry i.e. inquiry No.6 of 2002 and since the charge with regard to the award in reference No.1725 of 1990 is, as claimed by the petitioner also slightly overlapping or repeated in the said second inquiry, we are of the view that it would not be unjustified to also take into account the explanation and defence given by the petitioner in the said second inquiry No.6 of 2002, particularly with regard to the charge No.II and consider the findings of the inquiry officer in case of first inquiry, in light of the said material i.e material obtaining on record of the second inquiry. Therefore, we have considered the said material also and as the following discussion would show, the replies and explanation given by the petitioner in respect of the charge No.II in the said second inquiry and the other material which came on record of the said second inquiry, lend support to and fortify the conclusion that charge levelled against the petitioner is proved and the conclusions of the inquiry officer and / or the decision of the High Court cannot be said to be unjustified and or unsustainable. 10. We may now turn to the second charge sheet and the second inquiry. So far as the second charge sheet and the inquiry as well as the inquiry officer's report in the said proceedings are concerned, it is noticed that the allegations and charge in the charge sheet and statement of imputations are made under three broad heads which are taken note of herein above in para 2.9. So far as the second charge sheet and the inquiry as well as the inquiry officer's report in the said proceedings are concerned, it is noticed that the allegations and charge in the charge sheet and statement of imputations are made under three broad heads which are taken note of herein above in para 2.9. In his report dated 21.9.2004 the inquiry officer, after considering the material and after evaluating the evidence recorded his findings that the allegation and charge under the heading NO.1 and 3 were not proved and the charge and allegations under heading no.2 are partly proved. After considering the material on record of the proceedings of second inquiry the High Court agreed with and accepted the conclusions of the inquiry officer. Thus, there is no need to further deliberate over or consider the charge under heading no. 1 and 3. 10.1 Now, so far as the allegation under the heading No.2 is concerned it pertains to the allegation that though computer facility was not made available in the court or at residence the petitioner got typed the awards / orders in English on computer outside the court elsewhere i.e. at the office of advocate. The petitioner, in his reply, denied the charge and also denied that he had violated any secrecy and stated that he had done nothing to show any favour to some advocates. The petitioner, in his reply, inter alia stated that:- While it is true that no computer either English or gujarati has been provided either in the court premises or at my residence, it cannot be lead to the conclusion that I got any of the awards judgments, et. Referred to in the said charge or otherwise typed outside. I deny that any judgment were prepared outside the court and prepared otherwise, i.e. at the office(s) of the advocate(s). Some of the judgments are typed in English language on manual typewriter and also got typed on computer. The petitioner further stated in his reply that :- I started learning the use of computer, which was given to me for time being by my younger brother. For becoming familiar with the use of computer, I had been using the said computer at my residence. When I state I have learnt the use of computer, it would be stating the obvious that I know typing on a manual typewriter also. For becoming familiar with the use of computer, I had been using the said computer at my residence. When I state I have learnt the use of computer, it would be stating the obvious that I know typing on a manual typewriter also. After emphasizing that the order in the cited instance no.1 was typed by the court typist Mr. Makwana and therefore the allegation was without substance, the petitioner, with reference to the cited instances at sr. no. 2 to 6 in the chargesheet / statement of imputation, responded by stating in his reply that:- …..the matters shown at Sr. Nos. 2 to 6 in the chargesheet (page-7) are concerned, I crave leave to point out that during the period 29.5.2001 to 7.6.2001, though my stenographer was on leave, my departmental head had sent a letter exhorting me to complete the dictation work of ‘judgments’ prior my resuming charge at the place of transfer. Under the circumstances, as the above matters were heard earlier, I made every endeavour to pass the orders of final disposal, as per the direction of my superiors, and so I got the judgments written by hand, got prepared at home and also got typed through my clerk in the office. The petitioner also relied upon various decisions in support of the objections raised by him. 10.2 The presenting officer relied on about 30 documents as evidence to support the allegation and the charge against the petitioner which included complaint by union named Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh and by one Mr. V.H. Jadeja as well as anonymous complaints. The presenting officer also relied on the record and proceedings of the matters cited in connection with the charge, report of the president of the industrial court, statement by one Mr. H.B. Jadeja stenographer and oral evidence by Mr. A.N. Vyas of the above named union Mr. Acharya president of industrial Court, G.P. Parmar- the office Superintendent, Mr. Katariya Registrar industrial Court, Mr. D.K. Zala clerk-cum-typist, Mr. Makwana clerk-cum-typist, D.M. Trivedi Secretary of the above named union. During the proceedings of the second inquiry the petitioner gave his own statement 10.3 The petitioner also produced various documents on record in support of his submissions - defence which included copy of the statement given by one Mr. Raychura during the proceedings of the first inquiry. Makwana clerk-cum-typist, D.M. Trivedi Secretary of the above named union. During the proceedings of the second inquiry the petitioner gave his own statement 10.3 The petitioner also produced various documents on record in support of his submissions - defence which included copy of the statement given by one Mr. Raychura during the proceedings of the first inquiry. 10.4 The inquiry officer, in his report, has discussed at length the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and also the evidence produced on record and relied by the petitioner and the presenting officer and in para 45 the inquiry officer has recorded that:- 45. In view of the defence, it is clear that the delinquent has not disputed that some of the judgments were typed on computer. The Disciplinary Authority has produced anonymous application Exh. 23 wherein it is alleged that advocates Hameed Deda and Navneet Vaishanv have computers and the judgments are typed in the said computers by the delinquent. As mentioned earlier, this being an anonymous application, it cannot be considered as reliable evidence. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the computerized judgments were typed in the office of advocates. The delinquent has in the statement of defence Exh.102 and examination Exh.103 reiterated that he had prepared computerized judgments and the computer was provided by his brother. The delinquent has not adduced any evidence to support his defence that his brother had provided him a computer. There is no evidence as to when the computer was provided. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the delinquent had a computer provided by his brother. It is also a defence that some of the judgments were prepared by the delinquent in his handwriting and the same were got typed through clerk in the office. If the delinquent had d computer at his residence, what was the reason for him to prepare the judgments in his handwriting! If he had typed some of the judgments, on his computer, he could have instead of preparing the judgments in his handwriting, could have typed the same on the computer! The delinquent has stated that he knows Gujarat as well as English typewriting and is able to use computer in both the languages. Therefore, even if some judgments were prepared in Gujarati, they could have been directly typed on the computer! The delinquent has stated that he knows Gujarat as well as English typewriting and is able to use computer in both the languages. Therefore, even if some judgments were prepared in Gujarati, they could have been directly typed on the computer! Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the delinquent himself typed the judgments on computer at his residence. 10.5 The inquiry officer has also recorded that the documents placed on record revealed that the order in compliant NO.28 of 2000 and the order in reference no.167 of 1998 to 188 of 1998 and the order in WC application no.36 of 2000 and WC (fatal) application No. 15 of 1996 were typed in English, Gujarati, in Gujarati and in English respectively, on computer. After taking note of the aforesaid details and upon scrutiny of the documentary and oral evidence available on record, the inquiry officer has then observed in para 47 of the report that : 47. As discussed earlier, there is no evidence as to when the computer was given to the delinquent by his brother. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the delinquent had computer during the period when these judgments were typed and delivered….. The inquiry officer has also recorded in his report that the president of industrial court had confirmed that in the labour Court there was no facility of computer and yet the said judgments were found to have been typed on computer. 10.6 It is pertinent that even the petitioner has not disputed or denied that the awards in the said cases were prepared – typed on computer in English language and in Gujarati language on computer and it is also not disputed by him that the computer facility was not available in the Court or at the residence of the Judge. 10.7 However for explaining the anomaly as to how the said awards – orders were prepared on computer when the facility was not made available in the court or at his residence, the petitioner appear to have raised defence that the computer was provided by his brother and he himself was conversant with typing in both English and Gujarati languages and that therefore he had prepared the said judgments on computer made available to him by his brother who owned the computer. 10.8 In this context after carefully evaluating the evidence available on record and after elaborate discussion in his report, the inquiry officer has recorded that .... In this case the Disciplinary Authority has produced satisfactory evidence to prove that the judgments were computerized outside the Court. The delinquent has failed to substantiate his defence that the same were prepared on the computer provided by his brother. The inquiry officer has also recorded that “in view of the above discussion, analyzing the evidence, in my view, the computerized judgments were not typed at the residence of the delinquent…………” 10.9 It is noticed that the inquiry officer also considered that the stenographer was on leave from 29.5.2001 to 7.6.2001 and no typing work was got done through Mr. D.K. Zala clerk-cum-typist during the said period and Mr. Makwana clerk-cum-typist had prepared only one order in recovery application No. 2 of 1991 during the said period however various other judgments were prepared and delivered during the said period. The inquiry officer also observed, in para 47 and para 50 of the report that:- “47. As discussed earlier, there is no evidence as to when the computer was given to the delinquent by his brother. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the delinquent had computer during the period when these judgments were typed and delivered. Therefore, it can easily be inferred that the judgments were typed outside the Court. It is true that there is no evidence that the judgments were typed at the office of the advocate. If the delinquent had typed the judgments on computer at his residence, as he wanted to become familiar with the use of the computer, he ought to have adduced evidence to prove that he was having a computer at his residence. But no such evidence is produced by the delinquent. Therefore, in my view, it can be inferred that the judgments were not typed at the residence. As reported earlier, all these judgments were delivered between 30.8.2000 and 28.2.2001. Therefore, it cannot be said that the same were not dictated as the stenographer was on leave. 50. In view of above discussion, analyzing the evidence, in my view, the computerized judgments were not typed at the residence of the delinquent. Therefore, it is proved that the same were prepared outside the Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the same were not dictated as the stenographer was on leave. 50. In view of above discussion, analyzing the evidence, in my view, the computerized judgments were not typed at the residence of the delinquent. Therefore, it is proved that the same were prepared outside the Court. It is trued that there is no direct evidence with regard to oblique motive or favour to some advocates but dictation of a judgment is a confidential work and if it is found that judgment is not prepared either at the Court or residence, but at some other place, it can be presumed that the same was typed outside with some oblique motive. Similarly, there may not be a direct evidence to establish that it was typed outside to favour some advocates but inference can be drawn that the judgments were typed outside the Court to favour someone. In the proceedings of Departmental Inquiry, Disciplinary Authority is not required to prove a charge beyond reasonable doubt like in Criminal trial. In this case, the Disciplinary Authority has produced satisfactory evidence to prove that the judgments were computerized outside the Court. The delinquent has failed to substantiate his defence that the same were prepared on the computer provided by his brother.” Having discussed and analyzed, at length and in depth, the material on record the inquiry officer recorded below mentioned conclusions with regard to the charge under the said head No.2. “57. In view of foregoing discussion, the Disciplinary Authority has established that some of the judgments mentioned in the charge were not dictated and were prepared outside the court and were not typed on a computer through third party, but it has failed to prove that the same were typed at the office of advocate. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has partly proved this charge.” In the end the inquiry officer summarized the evaluation of evidence and the discussion by recording his conclusion that “on the evidence produced by the parties in my view the disciplinary authority has failed to prove that he delinquent maintained homely relation with certain advocates and few advocates were his favourite and the delinquent had passed favourable order in the matter of their clients………also failed to prove that the delinquent had issued show cause notice for penalty with oblique motive ….. However, the disciplinary authority has proved that the judgments mention in the charge sheet were not dictated to the stenographer or the typist but were prepared on computer outside the Court.” 10.10 In the result, as noted earlier, the inquiry officer held that charge under the hearing No.1 and 3 are not proved and charge under hearing No.2 is partly proved. 11. The foregoing discussion clearly bring out that the inquiry officer took into account the entire material including the documentary and oral evidence laid by both the sides as well as the submissions and has also considered and dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner and the part of the evidence relied on and emphasized by the petitioner and he has also recorded cogent reasons in support of his observations and conclusions. The conclusion of the inquiry officer that on consideration of the entire material the petitioner's explanation that he himself had typed awards / orders on computer was not sustainable cannot be faulted. 12. The fact remains that the petitioner himself did not own any computer and that is not his case as well and the court had also not provided computer to the petitioner either in the court or at his residence and that any of the stenographers or typists on the establishment of the court had not prepared – typed the cited orders / awards on computer either in the court or even at petitioner’s residence. There is no evidence of such nature or to that effect, on record. 12.1 In such background the only defence available to the petitioner was that he himself had prepared – typed the said orders / awards and he raised and advanced the said defence. There is no evidence of such nature or to that effect, on record. 12.1 In such background the only defence available to the petitioner was that he himself had prepared – typed the said orders / awards and he raised and advanced the said defence. However, since the defence could not have been substantiated without establishing that he owned a computer and since he had never intimated the High Court, as required by the rules, about purchase of any computer it was not possible for him to contend that he had prepared – typed the orders / awards on his own computer, he raised and advanced the alternative explanation that one of his family members i.e. his brother (who allegedly owned a computer) had provided the computer to him, however having asserted and insisted that the petitioner did not lead any evidence and did not establish before the inquiry officer that his brother owned a computer and / or that at the relevant time the computer was provided by his brother. In this fact situation the inquiry officer has held that the explanation – defence raised by the petitioner has not been substantiated. 13. The High Court, on its administrative side, after receipt of the inquiry officer's report examined the same and after considering the entire material including the reply and defence statement of the petitioner and the inquiry officer’s report, concurred with the findings of the inquiry officer and came to the tentative conclusion as regards punishment and to issue Notice inviting petitioner's explanation – response as to why major penalty should not be imposed. The petitioner responded to the notice by his reply dated 23.2.2005. We have considered the replies given by the petitioner, his oral statement before the inquiry officer, and the record of the inquiry proceedings including the report and after careful consideration we do not find that the conclusions by the inquiry officer can be considered as perverse or such which could not have been reasonably arrived at. 14. At this stage we should note that if at all there was any possibility to give any credence to the petitioner’s explanation or defence that the computer was provided by his brother, then that possibility also did not survive upon taking into account the material produced by petitioner himself during the hearing before the Disciplinary Committee. 14. At this stage we should note that if at all there was any possibility to give any credence to the petitioner’s explanation or defence that the computer was provided by his brother, then that possibility also did not survive upon taking into account the material produced by petitioner himself during the hearing before the Disciplinary Committee. 14.1 It is pertinent to note that it comes out from the record that the petitioner produced on record, at the time of hearing before the Disciplinary Committee, a bill / invoice in the name of his brother as an evidence to substantiate his claim that his brother had purchased the computer which he (his brother) had provided him (i.e. the petitioner). 14.2 The copy of the bill produced by the petitioner belies the defence – explanation by the petitioner inasmuch as the said invoice was purportedly issued by one Harsh System Pvt. Ltd. (based at Bhavnagar) in favour of the petitioner’s brother who was, at the relevant time, based at Ahmedabad. The said invoice is for Rs.12,000/- and is dated 5th April 2000 and carries on face of it, a local sales tax number 072901504 dated 1.7.2002. Meaning thereby the vendor of the computer was issued the sales tax registration in July 2002 i.e. after the date on which the invoice was allegedly issued. 14.3 In this context the High court on its administrative side has recorded in the final decision that:- 18. ........Several infirmities immediately emerge from the document. Firstly brother of delinquent officer is shown to be resident at Ahmedabad for some unknown reason. He has claimed to have purchased the computer at Bhavnagar. In the year 2000, personal computer of fairly advanced configuration as noted above along with color monitor is stated to have been sold for Rs.12,100/-. Last but not the least, in invoice dated 5.4.2000, sales tax number issued on 1.7.2002, is mentioned. This clearly is an unsuccessful attempt to prove purchase of the computer which proof did not exist. 19. As stated earlier, this document was not produced during the time of inquiry, therefore, the High Court has not taken the same into account to prove or disprove the charge. This clearly is an unsuccessful attempt to prove purchase of the computer which proof did not exist. 19. As stated earlier, this document was not produced during the time of inquiry, therefore, the High Court has not taken the same into account to prove or disprove the charge. The above observations were only to demonstrate that even after inquiry was over, the delinquent officer as a desperate attempt to show that computer was in fact purchased by his brother sought to produce a document which simply does not inspire confidence. 14.4 It was the petitioner who along with his response to the inquiry officer’s report, tendered the aforesaid invoice dated 5.4.2000 with a view to establishing that his brother had purchased a computer and he (his brother) had given it to the petitioner on which the petitioner himself, as claimed by him, typed the orders / awards. 14.5 However, on taking closure look at the date of the invoice (i.e. 5.4.2000) and the date on which the vendor got the sales tax registration (i.e. 1.7.2002) it becomes clear that the said document, does not inspire any confidence and it appears to have been issued subsequently. 15. After considering the said details and infirmities with regard to the said document, we do not see any reason to take different view. 15.1 At this stage we should recall that the inquiry officer took into consideration the defence of the petitioner in respect of one of the awards where he claimed that he had got the said award typed from one of the staff members of the Court after having himself prepared the same in his handwriting, and in that context the inquiry officer tested the submission and defence of the petitioner (that he had facility of the computer at his residence (which was given by his brother and he had himself typed / prepared the awards on the said computer) by posing the question that “If the delinquent had a computer at his residence then what was the reason for him to prepare the judgments in his handwriting. If he had typed some of the judgment on his computer he could have instead of preparing the judgment in his handwriting, could have type the same on the computer. The delinquent has stated that he knows Gujarat as well as English type writing and is able to use computer in both the languages. If he had typed some of the judgment on his computer he could have instead of preparing the judgment in his handwriting, could have type the same on the computer. The delinquent has stated that he knows Gujarat as well as English type writing and is able to use computer in both the languages. Therefore, even if some awards / orders were prepared in Gujarati, they could have been directly typed on the computer. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the delinquent himself typed the awards / orders on computer at his residence.” 15.2 The aforesaid aspect becomes more relevant in view of the invoice tendered on record by the petitioner alongwith his reply in response to the inquiry officer’s report. 16. The High Court, considered the entire material including the reply and the defence statement and the report of the inquiry officer and petitioner’s response to the tentative decision, and came to the conclusion that penalty of compulsory retirement would be commensurate with the gravity of the proved charges. Thus, the order – dated 25.8.2009 and the notification dated 5.11.2009 came to be passed. 17. We have examined the record. We have also considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. Upon proper consideration and as a result of the foregoing discussion, we do not find that there is any error in the conclusions and findings of the inquiry officer and in the final decision by the High Court. We do not find that the conclusions by the inquiry officer can be considered as perverse or not supported by evidence or such as could not have been reasonably arrived at. Any material or error which could convince us to upset the decision and take different view is not found nor brought to our notice. We have thus examined the record of both the inquiry proceedings and the evidence in respect of both the chargesheets as well as both reports of the inquiry officer and the decisions of the High Court. We, upon consideration of entire material, are, as discussed and noted earlier, of the considered view that the impugned findings and the decisions and the orders do not deserve to be interfered with. 18. The impugned decisions are placed before us for consideration for judicial review. In the process of judicial review the Court would not re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence. 19. 18. The impugned decisions are placed before us for consideration for judicial review. In the process of judicial review the Court would not re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence. 19. In the process of judicial review the Court will not sit in appeal over the conclusions of the inquiry officer and / or the decision of disciplinary authority and would not reappreciate the evidence or interfere with the findings unless the findings are based on no evidence and are clearly perverse. As held by the Apex Court the taste of perversity is whether the authority concerned could have reasonably arrived at the conclusion on the basis of material on record. We posed the same question with reference to the findings of the inquiry officer and the decision of the disciplinary authority and are not able to hold that the findings can be said to be perverse or could not have been reasonably arrived at. 20. With regard to the scope of interference by the High Court in jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case between State of U.P. & Another vs. Rajkishore Yadav & Another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 has observed, that: “…..It is a settled law that High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the state in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and consequent order of punishment of dismissed from service should not be disturbed…” (emphasis supplied) In the facts of the case reference may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in case between Chairman & MD V.S.P. vs. Goparaju Shri Prabhakara Hari Babu reported in 2008(5) SCC 569 wherein the Apex Court has observed that: “17. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. (emphasis supplied) 17.1 The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also cannot, on the basis of sympathy or sentiment, overturn a legal order.” The Hon'ble Apex Court, with regard to the factual findings of the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority has, in case between Y.P. Sarabhai vs. Union Bank of India & another reported in 2006(5) SCC 377 , held that:- “This court has repeatedly held that the factual finding of the disciplinary authority after holding a detailed enquiry and after going through elaborate evidence is not assailable in the Courts unless the breach of principle of natural justice or the violation of any rules or any material irregularity on the face of record is alleged and shown. However in this case the High Court in the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has again gone into all aspect of the enquiry in detail and has come to the same factual finding as the discipline authority and the Appellate Authority Such concurrent findings by three different authorities including the High Court should not be disturbed by this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India. We therefore have no other option except to dismiss this appeal accordingly, the appeal stand dismissed.” We are not sitting in appeal over the findings and the decision of the inquiry officer and it is not within the purview of judicial review to examine the sufficiency of evidence except lack or absence of evidence or to decide about the propriety of inquiry officer’s decision to believe one piece of evidence over another. The Apex Court again emphasized the restrain to be exercised in the exercise of power of judicial review, particularly in the matters related to Departmental Proceedings and imposition of punishment. In 2009, in the decision the case between Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another vs. Mukulkumar Chaudhary and others [ 2009 (15) SCC 620 ] the Apex Court observed in para 13 of the decision that:- “13. In 2009, in the decision the case between Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another vs. Mukulkumar Chaudhary and others [ 2009 (15) SCC 620 ] the Apex Court observed in para 13 of the decision that:- “13. It has been time and again said that it is not open to the High Court to examine the findings recorded is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision – making process. In a case such as the present one where the delinquent admitted the charges, no scope is left to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry officer about the proof of charges. In the absence of any procedural illegality or irregularity in conduct of the department enquiry, it has to be held that the charges against the delinquent stood proved and warranted no inferences.” 21. At this stage, we consider it appropriate to refer to the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court, on this point, in the judgment between High Court of Judicature, Bombay v/s Shashikant S. Patil ( AIR 2000 SC 22 ) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in para 16 that:- “16 ......But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the inquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that is some legal evidence on which the finding can be based then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution.” 22. As an upshot of the foregoing discussion we are of considered view that the impugned decisions and the orders do not warrant any interference. 23. It would be appropriate, at this stage to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case between Ajit Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and others (2011 (3) SCALE 438) wherein the full court resolved to dispense with the inquiry on the ground that the holding of inquiry may lead to question of validity of several judgments rendered by the petitioner- appellant, and further resolved, taking into account that the petitioner, a subordinate judge was not preparing the judgment on his own but used to get it prepared through somebody else, that he could be recommended for removal from service. Accordingly recommendation was forwarded, invoking proviso (b) to article 311 (2) of the Constitution to remove the petitioner – appellant from service and thereafter the Government issued the order of removal. The decision was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner appellant before the High Court. The petitioner carried the decision before the Apex court, and raised the contention that the Court was not empowered to dispense with the inquiry. The Apex Court, while holding that the dispensation of the inquiry was proper and the decision of removal also was sustainable, observed:- “11. In the case in hand, the officer concerned was working as sub-ordinate Judge and during the course of inspection by the Inspecting Judge it was found that he did not use to prepare judgments on his own, he used to get it prepared through some body else before delivering the judgments. Undisputedly, the inspecting Judge submitted his report to the Chief Justice of the High Court. The High Court considered the said report and thereafter was of the opinion that it is not possible to hold an enquiry in the case of the appellant and that holding of such enquiry should be dispensed with in view of the fact that if an enquiry is held by the same may lead to the question of validity of several judgments rendered by the appellant. The aforesaid reason recorded by the High Court was a legal and valid ground for not holding an enquiry. There was therefore also no necessity of giving him any opportunity of hearing was specifically dispensed with.” The impugned decisions and the orders cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. Neither the facts of the case nor the material on record nor the submissions of the petitioner could convince us that the impugned decision and order deserve to be set aside. The petitions therefore fail and deserve to be rejected. In the result the petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts of the case there will not be any order as to costs.