JUDGMENT : Arun Tandon and Mrs. Rekha Dikshit, JJ. Heard learned counsel Sri Anuj Srivastava for the appellant. 2. Appellant contends that The Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 was made by the Parliament with reference to Article 44 List I of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. It is therefore contended that this special appeal filed against the judgment of the Writ Court made in the petition which was directed against the appellate order would be maintainable in view of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. Since there is no objection on behalf of the respondents to the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner/respondent, we, in the facts of the case, hold that this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules would be maintainable. 3. Learned Single Judge under the judgment and order impugned in the present writ petition has carefully gone through the entire material relating to the charges which were levelled against the writ petitioner as well as the evidence which was on record. The Court has come to a specific conclusion that from the reading of the statement of the witnesses and from other evidence on record, none of the charges as alleged against the employee/writ petitioner could be established. The statement of the witnesses have specifically been noticed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment. 4. The learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that though there may not be any error in the procedure adopted in the matter of conduct of the enquiry there being no material evidence to bring home the charge, the finding of guilt as reported by the enquiry officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. 5. It is settled law that the High Courts in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with the findings of facts returned by the disciplinary authority/enquiry officer but the aforesaid principle of law is subject to the condition that if the finding returned by the disciplinary authority/enquiry officer is found to be based on no evidence then it would fall within the category of a perverse finding which would be liable to the interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. 6. From the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as from the perusal of the record, we find that the finding returned by the learned Single Judge qua the charge having not been proved by any material evidence on record is one such finding. 7. Therefore, the order holding the employee concerned guilty of charge based on no evidence has rightly been set aside. The impugned order does not warrant any interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules in this intra-Court appeal. 8. This Special Appeal is dismissed.