JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court against the orders dated 27.3.2008 and 29.6.2009 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad, whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under section 56(4) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 is rejected. 2. The petitioner was working as Junior Wireman with the Water Works Department of the respondent-Corporation. On 6.6.2006, when he was on duty, he entered the office of Assistant Engineer Shri Bharatbhai Gohil and hurled abuses at him and hit him with stick. The injured was taken to the hospital and got as many as five stitches on his head. The petitioner was charge-sheeted. The departmental inquiry in connection with this alleged misconduct was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.12.2007. Thereafter, final show-cause notice came to be issued on 5.1.2008, wherein, the petitioner was asked as to why he should not be removed from service. In the reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner took a stand that the Inquiry Officer has not complied with the rules pertaining to the departmental inquiry and the findings arrived at in the Inquiry Officer's report are contrary to the relevant rules as well as the record of the case. Thereafter, vide order dated 27.3.2008, the punishment of placing the petitioner at minimum pay-scale and for treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as suspension was imposed upon the petitioner. On 5.5.2008 the petitioner filed an appeal under section 56(4) of the BPMC Act, 1949 before the competent authority, however, his appeal came to be dismissed on 29.6.2009. Aggrieved from this order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition. 3. After notice, respondents have contested this petition by filing reply, wherein, it has been stated that the petitioner entered the office of complainant Shri Bharatbhai Gohil and without any provocation, he started abusing and misbehaving with the officer. He picked-up the stick and gave stick blow on the head of Shri Bharatbhai Gohil. The occurrence has been witnessed by number of employees who were present in the office at that time. The injured was taken to the hospital and five stitches were applied on his head. In the departmental inquiry, all the witnesses have supported the case of the respondents. The occurrence has been witnessed by number of employees who were present in the office at that time. The injured was taken to the hospital and five stitches were applied on his head. In the departmental inquiry, all the witnesses have supported the case of the respondents. The petitioner also admitted his guilt of causing injury to the complainant, however, it was his defence that the injury was not caused with the stick. The authorities after taking into account the entire incident and evidence adduced by the witnesses, imposed the punishment of reverting the petitioner to the minimum of pay-scale and for treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as suspension. According to the respondents, the punishment imposed in this case was proportionate to the guilt committed by the petitioner, and as such, this petition being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised four folds arguments. It has been submitted that there was no police complaint lodged by Shri Bharatbhai Gohil and in absence of police complaint, the incident cannot be treated as proved. It has been submitted that though the petitioner has admitted his guilt, however, this admission was under a belief that further proceedings will be dropped against the petitioner and he may be discharged with warning etc. It has been pointed out that there is material discrepancy in the medical record relied upon by the respondents, as the medico legal slip placed on record shows that the injured has been treated on 9.6.2006 when actual incident has taken place on 6.6.2006. Finally, it has been argued that the story regarding putting of stitches on the forehead of the injured is concocted one as Shri Bharatbhai Gohil has attended the office even on 6.6.2006. Once the stitches applied on the head of a person, he cannot join the office on the same day. Relying upon these submissions, learned counsel has requested for setting aside of the inquiry proceedings and the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-department has referred to the evidences of four witnesses examined against the petitioner. It has been argued that the witnesses are consistent in their statement, according to which, the petitioner has given stick blow on the head of Shri Bharatbhai Gohil, as a result of which, blood started oozing from his head. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-department has referred to the evidences of four witnesses examined against the petitioner. It has been argued that the witnesses are consistent in their statement, according to which, the petitioner has given stick blow on the head of Shri Bharatbhai Gohil, as a result of which, blood started oozing from his head. He was taken to V.S. Hospital. All the witnesses have accompanied him to the said hospital where doctor applied stitches on his head. All the witnesses are consistent in their statement in the court, and in view of their evidence as well as own admission of the petitioner, the punishment of reverting to the minimum pay-scale is proportionate to the guilt of the accused. 6. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. It is the case of the complainant that on 6.6.2006, the petitioner has entered the office of Shri Bharatbhai Gohil. Without any provocation, he had given stick blow on the head of said Shri Bharatbhai Gohil, who happens to be the senior officer of the petitioner and blood started oozing from the head. Incident has been witnessed by number of other employees, namely; P.M. Shah, Assistant Engineer, Ramnikbhai Gamit, Chargeman and Shankarbhai Thakore, who were also working in the same office. The injured has been taken to the hospital in the presence of the witnesses. He has been treated by the doctor and as many as five stitches has been applied on his head. The patient has been called for follow up treatment on 9.6.2006. 7. The main arguments of learned counsel for petitioner pertains to the fact that in absence of criminal proceedings, the punishment of reverting to the minimum pay-scale was against the law. This Court has considered the aforementioned submissions. The injuries received by Shri Bharatbhai Gohil are duly proved by the witnesses examined by the respondents. The witnesses are not chance witnesses but are employees working in the same office. All these witnesses seem to be responsible officers. They have no axe to grind against the petitioner by deposing falsely in the inquiry proceedings. The oral evidence of these witnesses is further proved from the medical evidence in the form of medico legal slip placed on record, according to which, the petitioner has taken treatment from the hospital and has been called for follow up treatment on 9.6.2006. They have no axe to grind against the petitioner by deposing falsely in the inquiry proceedings. The oral evidence of these witnesses is further proved from the medical evidence in the form of medico legal slip placed on record, according to which, the petitioner has taken treatment from the hospital and has been called for follow up treatment on 9.6.2006. It will be relevant to mention here that apart from aforementioned evidence, the petitioner himself has admitted regarding the incident. It is his case that in fact, the incident in question has taken place on 6.6.2006 and not on 9.6.2006. Once in his own admission, the petitioner has admitted the causing of injury etc. on 6.6.2006, the discrepancy regarding medico legal examination of evidence of witnesses has no relevancy. It was also the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that admission by the petitioner was under the belief that a lesser punishment can be imposed. It could be seen that this was a case under section 323 of IPC and all ingredients of causing voluntarily hurt were complete. Non-reporting the matter to the police and non-lodging of FIR, is itself a lenient view which has been taken against the petitioner. Still further, petitioner has been let off by placing him on minimum pay-scale, otherwise, had there been proceedings under IPC, it was a clear case of criminal liability, for which, the petitioner could have been sent to imprisonment for his own admission of having caused injury. 8. The departmental inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer has followed all the requisite procedure, as such, leading of evidence by the parties, examination and cross-examination of the witnesses etc. The High Court being court of appeal, cannot sit as a fact finding court and alter the factual conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. There is no illegality or irregularity in the inquiry conducted by the respondents and imposing the impugned punishment. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition being devoid of any merits, is dismissed by upholding the order under challenge.