ORDER 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order of dismissal dated 14.10.1996 (Annexure P/25) and the order dated 21.10.1997 (Annexure P/1) whereunder the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 14.10.1996, was rejected. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was working as Stenographer in the establishment of District & Sessions Judge, Durg. He had joined services in April, 1961 as Lower Division Clerk and was promoted to the post of Stenographer in the year 1978. For the alleged disorderly behaviour, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.06.1993. An FIR was lodged by the clerk of court in the Durg Police Station on 06.07.1993 against the petitioner and a charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner on 07.07.1993. A departmental enquiry was initiated on 30.08.1993 by the 1st Additional Judge to the District Judge, Durg. The petitioner made a request to the respondent No. 2 to provide copies of certain documents which was declined by the respondent No.2. The petitioner also made a request to change the Presiding Officer alleging that the said Enquiry Officer (for short 'the EO') was biased. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class and such report was not communicated to the petitioner even on demand. The petitioner also made an application to the respondent department to keep the enquiry pending as his case was also pending before the Criminal Court, on the same set of charges. After completion of the enquiry, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice and was dismissed from service on 03.12.1997 (Annexure P/20). An appeal was also preferred by him which was rejected by the respondent No. 1. Thus, this petition. 3. After completion of the enquiry, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice and was dismissed from service on 03.12.1997 (Annexure P/20). An appeal was also preferred by him which was rejected by the respondent No. 1. Thus, this petition. 3. Shri Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charge sheet was issued in violation of Rule 14(4) and 14(5a) of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Rules, 1966') as the Disciplinary Authority (for short 'the DA') was required to fix a date by which the petitioner should submit his reply to the charge sheet and on receipt of the reply to consider it or if the delinquent employee does not submit his reply, on expiry of the said period, the EO should have been appointed. The petitioner was never asked by the DA to submit his reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner asked for supply of the copy of the complaint and the report of the preliminary enquiry, as the complaint was the basis of the departmental enquiry. There was no allegation in the complaint of R.S. Mishra that the petitioner had gone to the District Judge's Court and urinated in the witness box. How this charge was framed is beyond one's understanding. The DA directed A. K. Shrivastava, the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class to hold preliminary enquiry which was conducted but on asking by the petitioner for a copy of the same, it was not supplied to him and denied by the EO and the DA. Shri Nair would further submit that the note appended to Rule 14(11) mandates that if the delinquent employee asks for copies of the listed documents orally or in writing the same should be supplied to him. On account of non-supply of the aforestated documents, the enquiry is vitiated. It is next contended that Shri G. C. Bajpai was incompetent to be the EO as he was one of the complainants alongwith R.S. Mishra. G.C. Bajpai came to a prima facie conclusion and recommended the District Judge to take exemplary action against the petitioner. Thus, it is evident that G.C. Bajpai was biased against the petitioner as G.C. Bajpai refused to supply a copy of the listed documents and concealed above material facts from the petitioner. G.C. Bajpai came to a prima facie conclusion and recommended the District Judge to take exemplary action against the petitioner. Thus, it is evident that G.C. Bajpai was biased against the petitioner as G.C. Bajpai refused to supply a copy of the listed documents and concealed above material facts from the petitioner. He was not acting in a fair and impartial manner but with a pre-determined state of mind to take exemplary action against the petitioner. Thus, it was requested by the petitioner to change him and entrust the enquiry to some other officer. The petitioner co-operated in the departmental enquiry and participated in the proceedings on all the dates fixed by the EO i.e. 02.09.1993, 08.09.1993, 10.09.1993, 17.09.1993, 20.09.1993, 25.09.1993, 04.10.1993, 06.10.1993 and 09.10.1993. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be accused of dragging or delaying in the enquiry on any count. It was only on one occasion i.e. on 04.11.1993, that the petitioner was absent due to his sickness, yet the EO refused to adjourn the enquiry and in a haste and hurry manner, without giving a single opportunity to the petitioner concluded the enquiry ex-parte. 4. Shri Nair would also submit that the EO can hold ex-parte enquiry only in three situations as mentioned in Rule 14(20) of the Rules, 1966, which states that (i) when the government servant did not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specified for the purpose or (ii) does not appear in person before the EO, or (iii) fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this rule. In the case on hand, no written statement of defence was called for nor was any date fixed in the charge sheet to submit the written statement of defence, secondly, the petitioner had appeared before the EO on all the dates fixed by him, except on 04.11.1993 due to his illness, and thirdly, the petitioner has neither failed nor refused to comply with the provisions of the said rules. Thus, none of the situation as contemplated by Rule 14(20) of the Rules, 1966, was present for the EO to hold the enquiry ex-parte. There was absolutely no evidence before the EO to hold that the petitioner was under the influence of intoxication as no medical examination report was available before him. Thus, none of the situation as contemplated by Rule 14(20) of the Rules, 1966, was present for the EO to hold the enquiry ex-parte. There was absolutely no evidence before the EO to hold that the petitioner was under the influence of intoxication as no medical examination report was available before him. None of the witness has deposed before the EO that the mouth or breath of the petitioner was smelling liquor. The finding of the EO is therefore based on his surmises and conjectures and not based on any evidence, documentary or oral. 5. Shri Nair would next contend that the order passed by the DA on the basis of the report of the EO, is bad on the aforesaid counts. Even, the order of the appellate authority is a non-speaking order which has been passed affirming the order of the DA, without assigning any reasons. The petitioner had taken a specific plea before the Appellate Authority that the EO was biased, but the same was not taken into consideration while dismissing the appeal. Though, the appellate authority is not required to assign reasons in detail, but it is expected to assign reasons in short for coming to any conclusion. 6. In support of his contention. Shri Nair would rely on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad Vs. Union of India & Others, (2007) 1 SCC 437 , Divisional Forest Officer, Kothagudem & Others Vs. Madhusudan Rao, (2008) 3 SCC 469 , Narendra Chandra Naskar Vs. Arun Bhattacharya & Other, (2008) 13 SCC 406 , State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 . 7. On the other hand, Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that petitioner, in total disregard of the responsibilities, created nuisance in the Court of respondent No.2 on 26.04.1992 by entering into the office of the Clerk of Court in a total drunken condition and abused and misbehaved with the Accountant Shri Pradip Paprikar, threw him out and manhandled him and when the CFC tried to intervene, he was also misbehaved. The gravity of the misconduct of the petitioner was such, that except the punishment of dismissal, no other penalty could have been imposed. There was no procedural irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry and the order of removal from service was passed after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The gravity of the misconduct of the petitioner was such, that except the punishment of dismissal, no other penalty could have been imposed. There was no procedural irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry and the order of removal from service was passed after affording full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner deliberately remained absent on several occasions to prolong the enquiry proceedings, ultimately, the EO was constrained to pass the order against the petitioner, ex-parte. 8. The petitioner has filed the incomplete copy of the charge sheet dated 07.07.1993 as the charge sheet filed by the respondent No.2 and 3, alongwith its written submission, shows that the charge framed and filed against the petitioner is in accordance with Rule 14(4) and Rule 14(5-a) of the Rules, 1966. So far as Shri G.C. Bajpai, being biased against the petitioner is concerned, the same is baseless. The petitioner on 25.09.1993 (Annexure P/10) made an application to the District & Sessions Judge, for change of the departmental enquiry to any other court on the ground that he wish to examine 1st A.D. & S. J. (EO) as his defence witness. He did not utter a single word against the EO. The petitioner even did not name the EO in his application and remained silent after rejection of his application by the District Judge, on 05.10.1993. The petitioner, even while filing reply to the second notice, issued by the District & Sessions Judge, did not utter any word alleging any bias against the EO. Thus, at this stage, the petitioner may not be permitted to raise the said issue. Further contention of the petitioner that there was sufficient cause for his nonappearance on 04.11.1993 is also misplaced as pursuant to the order of the High Court in appeal, opportunity was given to the petitioner to demonstrate sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding as he was proceeded ex-parte in the enquiry. In the application filed before the EO on 04.11.1993, the name of the disease was not mentioned and no medical certificate was attached alongwith the application. The application filed on 08.11.2003 for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding stated that the petitioner was suffering from cough and cold whereas the documents (Exhibit D -1) treatment slip shows that he was suffering from fever, and thus, there was variation in the ailment allegedly suffered by the petitioner on 04.11.1993. The application filed on 08.11.2003 for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding stated that the petitioner was suffering from cough and cold whereas the documents (Exhibit D -1) treatment slip shows that he was suffering from fever, and thus, there was variation in the ailment allegedly suffered by the petitioner on 04.11.1993. Even the said document bears two dates i.e. 02.11.1993 and 03.11.1993. Even no medical certificate as required by Rule 17 of the M.P. Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 and in accordance with Chapter 7 of Medical Jurisprudence, was filed before the EO. One Dr. M.C. Jain was examined by the petitioner, who was a government Doctor posted at Rajnandgaon on the relevant date and therefore his presence at Durg on the relevant date, was doubtful. Even one B.L. Deshmukh was appointed as defence assistance, thus, there was no sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. The findings recorded by the District Judge while rejecting the application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings is a pure finding of fact based on evidence, oral and documentary, available on record and are in no way perverse or contrary to the record. So far as the contention of the petitioner with regard to non-supply of the listed document is concerned, the petitioner has failed to establish that what prejudice was caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the aforesaid documents. Further, the penalty imposed by the DA was affirmed by the Appellate Authority, which required no detail reasons. Even the past conduct of the petitioner was such that after conducting departmental enquiry, by order dated 24.01.1989, he was punished for consuming liquor and damaging the property of the District Court, Durg, by the District & Sessions Judge, Durg. 9. In support of his contentions. Shri Agrawal would rely on decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow & Others, (1976) 3 SCC 585 , Union of India Vs. Alok Kumar, (2010) 5 SCC 349, Sarva Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank Vs. Manoj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 3 SCC 556 , S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 595 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in High Court of Chhattisgarh Vs. Satish Chand Shrivastava, W.A. No. 388/2009, decided on 5-8-2010. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. Manoj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 3 SCC 556 , S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 595 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in High Court of Chhattisgarh Vs. Satish Chand Shrivastava, W.A. No. 388/2009, decided on 5-8-2010. 10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. The first allegation of the petitioner that the petitioner was served with a charge sheet without list of documents, list of witnesses is erroneous. The petitioner has annexed copy of the charge sheet (Annexure P/5) which is not complete in all respects, which is only the first page of the charge sheet. On perusal of the files, it was found that alongwith the charge sheet, he was served with imputation of charges, a list of witnesses and also a list of documents. The list of documents contains the note sheet of R.S. Mishra, Court Superintendent, Durg. Preliminary Enquiry report conducted by Shri A.K. Shrivastava, the then 4th Civil Judge, Class II, and also file of the departmental enquiry dated 12.09.1987 held earlier and a copy of the application made by Shri Rajendra Singh Thakur, City Representative of Dainik Bhaskar. Thus, contention of the petitioner that he was not supplied a copy of the preliminary enquiry report and other relevant documents is not correct. The petitioner, it appears, has deliberately not filed other documents which was supplied alongwith the charge sheet dated 06.07.1993: The petitioner has made allegation against the EO for the first time before this Court. It is not found that at any stage, either during the enquiry or in reply to the second show cause notice or in the appellate stage, the allegation of bias was alleged against the EO. The petitioner wanted transfer of enquiry from Shri Bajpai to other EO only on the ground that the petitioner wanted to examine him as he was one of the complainants. In a case like this, in a Court room, which is considered to be a Temple of Justice, open act of drinking and urinating in the Court room takes place and the same has been proved after holding proper enquiry. In a case like this, in a Court room, which is considered to be a Temple of Justice, open act of drinking and urinating in the Court room takes place and the same has been proved after holding proper enquiry. Complaint of the petitioner that medical test was not conducted, also deserves to be rejected as breathing analyzer test may be one of the method but not the sole basis to hold a person as drunken when several persons present in the Court room have found him in drunken condition and the act of urinating itself indicates that he had flouted the basic civil behaviour. Thus, his conduct was a serious misconduct and highly condemnable. The petitioner has not pointed out any particular finding wherein the finding recorded was perverse and without any basis. The challenge of the petitioner is totally vague as the petitioner has concealed several facts of supply of preliminary enquiry, imputation of charges and other necessary documents and maintained throughout till the original was produced by the respondent-High Court. There is no illegality in proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner, especially when the petitioner in his application for setting aside ex-parte order, had again taken help of his habit of making false statement. It is clear that the petitioner has supplied medical certificate of two different dates for treatment of different diseases, contrary to the statement made in the application. The petitioner had also shown doubtful documents as on the same time, he was present at two different places i.e. Rajnandgaon and Durg also. Thus, it was rightly rejected. 12. The ratio laid down in Mathura Prasad (2007) 1 SCC 437 (supra), is well settled that the procedure laid down under the recruitment rules be followed strictly. There is no irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry, if it was in accordance with the rules prescribed for conduct of the enquiry. (Also see: Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 (supra)). 13. It is also well settled that the appellate or the revisional authority is not required to give detailed or reasoned order while affirming the order of the lower forum, but some brief reason should be indicated affirming the order of the lower forum. The rejection by the appellate authority clearly indicates that the appeal was properly considered. (See: Madhusudan Rao, (2008) 3 SCC 469 (supra)). 14. The rejection by the appellate authority clearly indicates that the appeal was properly considered. (See: Madhusudan Rao, (2008) 3 SCC 469 (supra)). 14. The petitioner has not established bias except self same statement. The EO is normally influenced by the argument and materials available before him, but that cannot be the ground to hold that the enquiry was biased. In the Court, if the Presiding Officer witnesses some incident and acting as an EO takes a decision on the basis of deposition of other witnesses and documents, it cannot be held that the DE held by the officer was vitiated, as nothing has been proved at any point of time that his conduct was such as to give impression that he was biased. 15. It is well settled that if a de-facto prejudice is not caused to an employee, the Court should not interfere with the departmental enquiry. The employee must show that the prejudice has actually been caused to him. (See: Alok Kumar (2010) 5 SCC 349(supra) and Sarva Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bane (2010) 3 SCC 556 (supra)). In the case on hand, the petitioner has not shown from an point of view that any injustice or prejudice has been caused to him, rather the instant petition is based on false statement and averments as pleaded by the petitioner in the petition. 16. It has been held that in a criminal case, strict proof is required; however, in the disciplinary enquiry on the basis of probabilities also, charges may be held as proved. The Supreme Court, in Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. M. G. Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 , after examining all the earlier decisions on this issue, held as under: “24. Thus, there can be no doubt regarding the settled legal proposition that as the standard of proof in both the proceedings is quite different, and the termination is not based on mere conviction of an employee in a criminal case, the acquittal of the employee in a criminal case cannot be the basis of taking away the effect of departmental proceedings. Nor can such an action of the department be termed as double jeopardy. The judgment of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony does not lay down the law of universal application. Facts, charges and nature of evidence, etc. Nor can such an action of the department be termed as double jeopardy. The judgment of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony does not lay down the law of universal application. Facts, charges and nature of evidence, etc. involved in an individual case would determine as to whether decision of acquittal would have any bearing on the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry. Loss of confidence 25. Once the employer has lost the confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, the order of punishment must be considered to be immune from challenge, for the reason the discharging the office of trust and confidence requires absolute integrity, and in a case of loss of confidence, reinstatement cannot be directed. [Vide AIR India Corpn. v. V.A. Rebellow, Francis Klein & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Workmen and BHEL v. M. Chanrashekhar Reddy.]." 17. It is worthwhile to state that the conduct of the staff members of the judiciary must be above Board. They are required to be well-disciplined and not to do anything which has adverse impact on the administration of justice. A court is a public place called as Temple of Justice. Any act of the above stated nature done by a staff member of the judiciary has a far reaching effect. The people may lose trust in administration of justice on the ground that the judiciary has no control over the staff/employees working therein. The facts, in this case has already been proved. The employee must develop a conduct to show that the employer has full confidence in him. If the confidence of the employer is lost in the process of this type of activity, as aforestated, that has to be considered while imposing punishment. 18. Thus, this Court is of the strong view that the enquiry was properly conducted and the punishment awarded to the petitioner is just and proper, warranting no interference. 19. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Petition Dismissed.