ORDER : Heard. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed legality and validity of orders of penalty passed on 28-03-2006 as also dismissal of appeal and mercy appeal on 16-05-2007. 2. Facts necessary for decision of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Constable in Police Station Supela, Bhilai on the allegation of having taken bribe, the petitioner was suspended on 31-12-2004. Criminal case was also registered and departmental enquiry was opened by issuance of charge sheet on 28-01-2005. The petitioner submitted his reply on 08-03-2005 and denied allegations stating that he had never gone to the complainant nor demanded bribe. Reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and the disciplinary authority appointed Inquiry Officer/Presenting Officer. During enquiry, the prosecution examined number of witnesses. The petitioner and other co-delinquent employees were granted opportunity to lead defence witness and as many as 10 witnesses were examined. The Inquiry Officer thereafter submitted the enquiry report, in which, the charges were found proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the enquiry report, copy of which was also supplied to the petitioner, penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed. The appeal and mercy appeal were also dismissed, giving rise to the instant petition. 3. Assailing correctness and validity of the departmental enquiry proceedings and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, learned counsel for the petitioner argued in extenso that the enquiry is vitiated, due to violation of principles of natural justice in as much as, various relevant informations and documents which were relied upon by the prosecution or necessary for effective defence of the petitioner were not supplied, despite repeated demands made through various applications filed along with the petition as Annexure P/8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the CD and photographs were not supplied to the petitioner nor the copy of complaint dated 30-12-2004 submitted by the complainant in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau. It is submitted that in order to establish and prove his defence that the petitioner was not accompanied with co-delinquent employee-Nirbhay Singh on 28-12-2004, relevant entries of Rojnamchasanha maintained in the Police Station Supela, were also demanded, but these documents were also not supplied to the petitioner. It is submitted that in order to establish and prove his defence that the petitioner was not accompanied with co-delinquent employee-Nirbhay Singh on 28-12-2004, relevant entries of Rojnamchasanha maintained in the Police Station Supela, were also demanded, but these documents were also not supplied to the petitioner. For the very purpose, the petitioner also sought copies of Incoming and Outgoing Entries Register of the Police Station, but that document was not supplied to the petitioner. Non supply of those very documents seriously prejudiced the petitioner in his effective defence that the petitioner had neither gone to the complainant along with Nirbhay Singh nor demanded any bribe. It is next submitted that a very substantial defence was not only raised, but proved by leading cogent oral evidence of Balbir Singh, Pramod Dewangan, Mandeep Kaur, Avtar Singh and Jivrakhan Yadav that the applicant's son Pramod Dewangan and the complainant had gone to video record a ceremony and while these two were taking coverage, for some reason, the camera held by the petitioner's son was not working, due to which, Sukhwant Singh was requested to make necessary arrangement and paid him Rs.1500/- but the complainant did not prepare the video footage as demanded and therefore, the money which was kept by the complainant for the said work was being returned and it was not towards demand of bribe. This defence was not properly considered either by the Inquiry Officer or by the Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authorities. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner was duly supplied each and every document relied upon by the prosecution. He would further submit that non-supply of Rojnamchasanha entry dated 21-12-2004 and copies of Incoming and Outgoing Register of the Police Station did not prejudice the petitioner, because there is no finding recorded that the records of the police station prove departure of the petitioner from the police station to the complainant's shop along with Nirbhay Singh. He would next submit that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner never raised any objection that the documents of the prosecution were not supplied to him. In fact, in his first letter of demand of document, the petitioner has stated that the documents of prosecution were supplied but then he demanded entry of Rojnamchasanha dated 21-12-2004. He would next submit that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner never raised any objection that the documents of the prosecution were not supplied to him. In fact, in his first letter of demand of document, the petitioner has stated that the documents of prosecution were supplied but then he demanded entry of Rojnamchasanha dated 21-12-2004. Next submission of learned State counsel is that opportunities are given to the petitioner to lead defence evidence and the Inquiry Officer duly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and after consideration of defence evidence, the same was rejected and the prosecution story was preferred and therefore, the petitioner seeks re-appreciation of evidence collected during departmental enquiry, which may not be permissible ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Before adverting to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I deem it appropriate to take note of the settled legal position with regard to scope of interference by the Writ Court in the matter of departmental enquiry as observed by this Court in the case of Devi Prasad Pandey vs. State of M.P. (decided on 31-07-2017 in WPS No.1551 of 2005), as under:- 8. Historically, the scope and ambit of judicial review of administrative action was set in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. vs. Wednesbury Corpn., (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA) and the principle laid down therein came to be known as “Wednesbury” principles, wherein it was held that when a statue gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited and interference was not permissible unless order was contrary to law or relevant factors were not considered or irrelevant factors were considered or the decision was one which no reasonable person would have taken. “Wednesbury” principle was reiterated by Their Lordships in the Supreme Court in the case of Om Kumar vs. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 .. The doctrine of proportionality was explained by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 to mean that the question whether, while regulating the exercise of fundamental rights, appropriate restrictive choice of measures have been taken by the authority so as to achieve the object or the purpose of administrative order. The principle of proportionality is applicable to find out as to whether the penalty imposed on delinquent employee is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct or not. Thus, it is not enough that the decision should be made reasonable, the decision should also not be disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. This Court feels it pertinent to refer to the observations made by Their Lordships in the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557 wherein the principles relating to judicial review has been summarized as below: “21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 25. First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him,. the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic Tribunal of Inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental inquiry invalid. The High Court is not a Court of Appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authorities entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. Second, where there is some evidence which the authorities entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.” 6. As far as grievance of the petitioner with regard to non supply of document is concerned, application dated 07-02-2005 (Annexure P/8) would show that in the very first paragraph, the petitioner has stated as below:- ^^1- fd] vkids }kjk eq> ij tks nks"kkjksi.k yxk;k x;k gS] ml laca/k esa vko';d nLrkost eq>s iznku fd;k x;k gS] ijarq vkids }kjk ?kVuk fnukad 21-12-2004 dks vkids vuqlkj izsf"kr i= dzekad 32@2005 fnukad 21-12-2005 ds i= esa ;g fy[kk x;k gS] fd fnukad 21- 12-2004 dks gh Jh fuHkZ; flag ds lkFk foospuk gejkg esa tkus okys iz/kku vkj{kd vtqZuyky nsokaxu dzekad 57 dk mYys[k fn;k x;k gS] ijarq foospuk gejkg ds laca/k esa uk rks Mk;jh dh izfr iznku dh xbZ gS] vkSj u gh jkstukepk dh] ftlesa mijksDr vijk/k dzekad ds laca/k esa esjs }kjk jokuxh ,oa vken&fjiksVZ foospuk gejkg ds :i esa Mkyh xbZ gks] mldh izekf.kr izfrfyfi miyC/k djk;h tkosA** A perusal of the aforesaid recital would show that the petitioner admits that the documents on the basis of which charges were levelled on him, were supplied to him. If the documents enlisted along with the charge sheet would not have been supplied to the petitioner, the natural conduct of the petitioner would have been to first ask for documents relied upon by the prosecution. On the contrary, the petitioner himself admits that the documents of the prosecution have been supplied to him. Moreover, in the other applications, which have been cumulatively filed, it has not been categorically stated that the documents along with the charge sheet have not been supplied but the text and tenor of the application is that other relevant documents have not been supplied to him. In the order sheets recorded during departmental enquiry on 14-05-2005, it has been recorded that the documents with reference to the application of the petitioner were supplied. In the subsequent order sheets of the departmental enquiry, there is nothing to show that the applicant had repeated any demand for supply of the documents of the prosecution. Along with the charge sheet, total 15 documents were referred to, which includes CD and the photographs at S.No.10 & 11. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents enlisted along with the charge sheet were not supplied to the petitioner, cannot be accepted. Along with the charge sheet, total 15 documents were referred to, which includes CD and the photographs at S.No.10 & 11. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents enlisted along with the charge sheet were not supplied to the petitioner, cannot be accepted. The petitioner had also demanded copy of Rojnamchasanha entries dated 21-12-2004 of the Police Station Supela, Bhilai. It appears that these particular documents were not supplied to the petitioner. Moreover, the copy of Inward and Outward Entry Register of the concerned Police Station was also not supplied to the petitioner. However, only on the ground that particular document as demanded by delinquent employee was not supplied, enquiry cannot be said to be vitiated unless it is established that non supply of the document resulted in prejudice. 7. The petitioner's defence throughout has been that he had not gone along with co-delinquent employee Nirbhay Singh nor was involved in the investigation in the case which was being investigated by Nirbhay Singh. The petitioner's defence is that he did not at all come to the shop of the complainant Sukhwant Singh. In order to establish the defence that he was never entrusted from the Police Station to go along with Nirbhay Singh, the petitioner demanded copy of Rojnamchasanha entries to establish that he had not gone along with Nirbhay Singh. This Court had gone through the enquiry report. In the enquiry report, there is no finding recorded that the petitioner was entrusted with the duty to enquire into certain allegations of commission of offence and towards that he was relieved from the Police Station to go along with Nribhay Singh. In fact, the oral evidence which has been considered by the Inquiry Officer, shows that on that date, the petitioner was on patrolling duty. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer never recorded a finding that the petitioner was sent from the Police Station so as to say that non supply of Rojnamchasanha entries would have prejudiced the petitioner's defence. The finding that the petitioner had gone along with Nirbhay Singh to the CD Shop of the complainant and bribe was demanded, was not based on Rojnamchasanha entries but on the basis of oral evidence and the photographs. Therefore, even if Rojnamchasanha entry dated 21-12-2004 was not supplied to the petitioner, it did not prejudice the petitioner, in establishing his defence. 8. Therefore, even if Rojnamchasanha entry dated 21-12-2004 was not supplied to the petitioner, it did not prejudice the petitioner, in establishing his defence. 8. True it is that the petitioner had raised substantial defence that the money which he had received from the complainant was not towards bribe but towards refund of some money which the complainant had to pay to the petitioner's son. To develop this defence, the petitioner examined certain witnesses. These witnesses have stated that the complainant owed some money to petitioner's son. 9. Enquiry Officer was thus, faced with two sets of oral evidence and documentary evidence. One which was based on oral evidence and the photographs showing applicant receiving some cash amount from the complainant and the other explanation as to why the applicant was receiving that amount. Investigating Officer, upon appreciation of evidence, leaned to accept the version of the prosecution and rejected the defence evidence. It is not a case where the defence raised by the petitioner was not at all considered and completely omitted from consideration. The finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer indeed show that the Enquiry Officer has also applied its mind to the petitioner's defence but rejected the same for reasons. 10. Even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted, it would only lead to another possible view which could be taken on the set of evidence oral and documentary collected during the course of enquiry. However, the findings which have been recorded against the petitioner was also based on relevant and admissible evidence. Whether the evidence, led by the prosecution or led by the defence, should be accepted, is essentially a matter in the realm of appreciation of evidence. Once the appreciation of evidence is done by the authorities, even if two views are possible, the Writ Court would not substitute its opinion by taking another possible view. Learned counsel for the petitioner also emphasized that in the first complaint made by the complainant to the Anti Corruption Bureau, the name of applicant was not mentioned, therefore, it also supports the defence of the petitioner that he was falsely roped in by the complainant. I find that during the course of enquiry, when the complainant was examined, the petitioner was also afforded opportunity to cross-examine. I find that during the course of enquiry, when the complainant was examined, the petitioner was also afforded opportunity to cross-examine. At this stage, it was open for the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant on his defence that the money which was paid by the complainant to the applicant was not bribe but towards return of money payable to the complainant's son, that the complainant for some reason nurtured ill-will against the petitioner, therefore, with a view to falsely implicate, a false story was prepared. On the aspect as to why name of the applicant was not mentioned in the first complaint made to Anti Corruption Bureau, nothing was suggested in the cross-examination. This having not been done, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, placing reliance upon the testimony of the complainant, cannot be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It needs no authority for the settled legal proposition that the Writ Court would not re-assess the evidence on record as an appellate authority to reach its own conclusion. Once, the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer are based on some relevant evidence and the defence has been taken into consideration, interference by the Writ Court would not be permissible under the law. 11. In view of foregoing, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.