Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 458 (GUJ)

R N DABHI v. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

2021-06-21

BHARGAV D.KARIA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Vilas G. Goswamy, for the petitioner, learned Advocate, Mr. Paritosh Calla, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 thorough video conference. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “20. … (A) Quashing and setting aside the order dated 16-5-94 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as confirmed by the appellate order dated 11-5-99 and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits, including back wages with 12% interest. (B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, respondent no.2 may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. (C) ...” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as Jr. Clerk in Court of the learned Civil Judge, Gogha, Bhavnagar, in the year 1987-88. A charge-sheet dated 15.04.1988 was served upon the petitioner by Respondent No.2-District Judge, Bhavnagar, containing three charges, viz. (i) demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.850/- from one Shri. Mahesh Sindhi, (ii) in three traffic cases, he took excess amount of fine, without issuing receipts and (iii) he demanded Rs.1,000/- from Shri. Mahesh Sindhi in the name of learned Magistrate for getting the accused acquitted. 2.1 An inquiry officer was appointed to hold the departmental proceedings. As per the Inquiry Report dated 19.06.1989, the petitioner was held guilty for all the three charges. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority-Respondent No.2 issued notice dated 21.10.1989, to showcause, as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted reply dated 04.12.1989 and by the order dated 16.05.1994, Respondent No.2 ordered compulsory retirement of the petitioner from 16.05.1994. 2.2 Against the above order, the petitioner filed appeal before Respondent No.1-the High Court of Gujarat, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.05.1999, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner through his learned Advocate. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the appeal has preferred the present appeal. 3. Learned Advocate, Mr. Goswami, appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are serious errors in conducting the departmental proceedings, from the stage of Preliminary Inquiry, itself. It was, further, submitted that, though, the petitioner had demanded the complaints filed by Mr. Mahesh Sindhi, making allegations against him and by Mr. Mavji Lakha, recorded by the PI, ACB, Bhavnagar, the same were never supplied to the petitioner. It was, further, submitted that, though, the petitioner had demanded the complaints filed by Mr. Mahesh Sindhi, making allegations against him and by Mr. Mavji Lakha, recorded by the PI, ACB, Bhavnagar, the same were never supplied to the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that the non-supply of the copies of such complaints filed against the petitioner, the entire inquiry proceeding is vitiated. 3.1 It was submitted that the prime witness, Mr. Mahesh Sindhi, who is said to have been asked by the Petitioner to pay the bribe and who is alleged to have paid the same, refused to sign the deposition and crossexamination before the Inquiry Officer. Since, the reliance is placed on the deposition and cross-examination of Mr. Mahesh Sindhi by the Inquiry Officer to hold that the charges leveled against the petitioner as proved and as such, the entire inquiry proceeding is vitiated. 3.2 It was submitted that the learned Magistrate, who conducted Preliminary Inquiry, was not competent to do the same, as there were allegations of corruptions against the said Magistrate. 3.3 Learned Advocate, Mr. Goswami, submitted that the aforesaid three aspects were pointed out in the appeal filed before this Court as well as before the Disciplinary Authority with a prayer to drop the departmental proceedings, but none of the authority has given satisfactory explanation for rejecting the submission of the basic flow in the inquiry proceedings. It was, therefore, submitted that it is true that this Court cannot go into the merits of the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, which have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, but, the three issues raised by the petitioner from the very beginning goes to the root of not conducting the departmental proceedings in accordance with law, and therefore, the entire inquiry proceeding stands vitiated and as such, the impugned order passed by the authorities for compulsory retirement of the petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside. 3.4 Learned Advocate, Mr. Goswami, in support of his submissions relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ‘CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ANOTHER VS. VIJAY D. WANI & OTHERS’, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 152. 4. Per contra, the learned Advocate, Mr. Paritosh Calla, appearing for Respondent Nos. 3.4 Learned Advocate, Mr. Goswami, in support of his submissions relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ‘CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ANOTHER VS. VIJAY D. WANI & OTHERS’, (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 152. 4. Per contra, the learned Advocate, Mr. Paritosh Calla, appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the inquiry proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated, since, all the issues raised by the petitioner, in this petition, have already been duly considered by the competent Authority of the High Court and the petitioner was heard exclusively through his learned Advocate and after considering his arguments, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 4.1 It was submitted by learned Advocate, Mr. Calla, that with regard to the non-supply of the documents demanded by the petitioner, i.e. the complaints filed by Mr. Mahesh Sindhi and Mr. Mavji Lakha, is not fatal to the inquiry proceedings, as the petitioner was already provided a copy of the statement of Mr. Mahesh Sindhi, recorded by Respondent No.2-District Judge, Bhavnagar, at the stage of preliminary inquiry, which is not disputed by the petitioner. With regard to the contention raised by the petitioner that the learned Magistrate could not have been entrusted with the Preliminary Inquiry, it was submitted that along with the learned Magistrate, Respondent No.2-District Judge, Bhavnagar, also participated in the Preliminary Inquiry, and therefore, it cannot be said that the inquiry is vitiated because the learned Magistrate, against whom the allegations of corruptions were made, submitted preliminary inquiry report. 4.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Calla, therefore, submitted that all the grievances raised by the petitioner that the main witness, Mr. Mahesh Sindhi, did not sign his deposition and cross-examination in the inquiry proceedings, and therefor, the same ought to have been discarded by the Inquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority and if, such a deposition deposition and cross-examination is discarded, then, there remains nothing to prove the charges etc., is without any basis, because the inquiry officer as well as Disciplinary Authority, after taking into consideration, all the material evidence on record, including the deposition of Mr. Prakash Bahgwanbhai Sindhi and Mr. Mavji Lakha held that charges are proved against the petitioner. 4.3 It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer heavily relied on the deposition of PI, Mr. Prakash Bahgwanbhai Sindhi and Mr. Mavji Lakha held that charges are proved against the petitioner. 4.3 It was submitted that the Inquiry Officer heavily relied on the deposition of PI, Mr. Trivedi, who deposed that Mavji Lakha had gone to police station to lodge a complaint against the petitioner. It was pointed out that the Inquiry Officer has also considered the aspect that the raid conducted by the ACB failed and as such, said raid was conducted only on the basis of the complaint of Mr. Mavji Lakha, which is not in dispute. It was, further, submitted that the complaint lodged by Mr. Mavji Lakha, is a confidential document and hence, the same was not supplied to the petitioner. 4.4 Learned Advocate, Mr. Calla, further, submitted that the order dated 11.05.1999 passed by the Appellate Authority is extensive, considering all the relevant aspects, which are reiterated by the petitioner in this petition. It was, therefore, prayed that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4.5 Learned Advocate, Mr. Call, placed reliance on the decision dated 25.08.2004 of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5759 of 1999 in the case of ‘ NIRMALA J. JHALA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT’. It was, therefore, submitted that an Inquiry Officer inquiry, in a departmental proceedings, has to consider the preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as in a criminal prosecution and that neither the technical Rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of a fact or evidence as defined, therein, apply to the department proceedings. 4.6 It was submitted that in the facts of the case, the petitioner has been held guilty for all the three charges leveled against him and that the Appellate Authority has rightly observed that the Disciplinary Authority has taken a lenient view of the matter and has imposed the lesser punishment of compulsory retirement from service, rather than dismissing the petitioner from the service. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, it may appear, prima faice, that there are serious flaws in the inquiry proceedings, conducted against the petitioner, i.e. (i) the learned Magistrate, against whom the charges of corruptions were made, was entrusted the Preliminary Inquiry, (ii) copies of the complaints filed against the petitioners were not supplied to him and (iii) the key-witness, Mr. Mahesh Sindhi, refused to sign the deposition and cross-examination, which was recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the presence of the petitioner as well as learned Advocate representing him. However, the Appellate Authority has considered all the three aspects in detail, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, and therefore, the prima facie view, which may emerge from the facts and the evidence on record, on the closer scrutiny of the entire material evidence produced in the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer and confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority cannot be found fault with in any manner, whatsoever. 5.1 Elaborating, further, on this issue, it is necessary to refer to the various findings given by the Appellate Authority, while confirming the order of compulsory retirement from service passed by Disciplinary Authority, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner vis-a-vis the allegations made by the petitioner that no copy of the complaints filed by Mr. Mahesh Sindhi and Mr. Mavji Lakha were supplied to him, as under: “18. On the record of the inquiry, High Court finds that there is an application of the appellant ex.8 at page 45-46, Ex.8, is the application of the appellant dat ed 25th June, 1988, under which he has prayed to the disciplinary authority (District Judge, Bhavnagar) to supply him a copy of the complaint made in the present case by Maheshbhai Sindhi to the District Judge, Bhavnagar, as well as the complaint made by one Mavjibhai to the Police Inspector, Shri. Trivedi, copies of these documents were prayed for by the delinquent employee for the purpose of preparing his reply to the charge sheet. This application came to be decided by the District Judge, Bhavnagar, vide its order dated 28th June, 1988. The application of the complainant, Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi, was taken to be confidential and on this ground, the District Judge, Bhavnagar, declined to grant a copy of the same to the delinquent employee, appellant. So far as the complaint filed by Mavjibhai Lakhabhai before the Police Inspector, A.C.B., Bhavnagar, is concerned, it is stated that the same has not been produced on the record of the inquiry by the office of the Police Police Inspector, A.C.B.. The request of the delinquent employee to call for the same from A.C.B. and to supply him a copy of the same was declined. The request of the delinquent employee to call for the same from A.C.B. and to supply him a copy of the same was declined. The District Judge, Bhavnagar, has stated that this documents I part of the record of A.C.B.. The application of the delinquent employee, appellant, was ordered to be filed. 19. On the record of the inquiry, High Court finds that the appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. In Para-2 of the reply, the appellant has made reference to his application dated 25th June, 1988. In para-7 of the reply, he also made grievance that he has not been issued the copies of any of the money receipts, i.e. the receipts of fine in the criminal case N.C. No. 301 to 303 of 1987. The disciplinary authority, Bhavnagar, on 18th July, 1988, considered the matter again with reference to this reply of the appellant. The disciplinary authority, (District Judge, Bhavnagar) ordered that the Police Inspector, A.C.B. Bhavnagar, be ordered to produce the original complaint of Mr. Mavjibhai Lakhabahi and on his producing the same, a copy thereof be supplied to the delinquent free of cost. Further order has been passed to give to the appellant, xerox copy of the three receipts of fine recovered in Criminal Case No. 301 to 303 of 1987. As regards copy of the complaint of Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi, the disciplinary authority (District Judge, Bhavnagar) held that a copy of the same cannot be supplied as the copy of the statement of Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi recorded by the District Judge has already been supplied to him. From this order, it is clear that whatever the documents, which the appellant demanded, the copies of the same have been given, except, the copy of the complaint of Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi. It is not the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the copy of this complaint is made the basic document for holding him to be guilty of charges either by the IO or by disciplinary authority. The learned counsel for the appellant, on being asked, has failed to give out any cogent and satisfactory reasons or grounds how any prejudice has been caused to the delinquent employee appellant for want of non-supply of the copy of the complaint of Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi. Every procedural irregularity in the departmental inquiry does not vitiate the inquiry. The learned counsel for the appellant, on being asked, has failed to give out any cogent and satisfactory reasons or grounds how any prejudice has been caused to the delinquent employee appellant for want of non-supply of the copy of the complaint of Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi. Every procedural irregularity in the departmental inquiry does not vitiate the inquiry. It is true that the documents, copy of which have been prayed by the delinquent employee ordinarily should have been supplied to him, but, where a copy of the document has not been supplied, it is very essential and obligatory on the part of the delinquent employee to satisfy the appellate authority or where the matter has been taken to the Court on judicial side, to the court that non-supply of the copy of that document has serious prejudice to his defence. Relevance of the document in defence has also to be established. The learned counsel for the appellant through has raised this contention, but, has utterly failed to point out any relevance of this document as well as any prejudice caused to the delinquent employee for non-supply thereof. In the absence of showing any relevance of these documents as well as causing of any prejudice to the delinquent employee due to non-supply thereof in his defence, on this ground, it is difficult to hold that the inquiry vitiates.” 5.2. Apart from the above, it is not in dispute that the copy of the statement of Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi recorded by the District Judge, Bhavnagar, at the time of Preliminary Inquiry had been supplied to the petitioner. Hence, it is also considered by the Appellate Authority that what was the complaint against the petitioner, on the basis of which the inquiry had been ordered, was already made known to the petitioner, and therefore, it cannot be said that the Inquiry Proceedings have been vitiated. The reliance is also placed by the Appellate Authority on the order of the learned District Judge, Bhavnagar, Dated: 18.07.1988, by which sufficient and reasonable care has been take to redress the grievances of the petitioner. With regard to the non-supply of the documents, there is no grievance made by the petitioner for non-compliance of the order of the learned District Judge, Bhavnagar, Dated: 18.07.1988. With regard to the non-supply of the complaint filed by Mr. With regard to the non-supply of the documents, there is no grievance made by the petitioner for non-compliance of the order of the learned District Judge, Bhavnagar, Dated: 18.07.1988. With regard to the non-supply of the complaint filed by Mr. Mavjibhai Lakhabhai with ACB, Bhavnagar, since, a complaint filed with the ACB is treated to be confidential, a copy of the same was not supplied to the delinquent employee. The petitioner did not raise any dispute or any grievance with re gard to the deposition and cross-examination of PI, Mr. Trivedi, of ACB, Bhavnagar, who deposed on oath that Mr. Mavjibhai Lakhabhai had come to ACB Police Station to lodge a complaint for demand of RS.1,000/- by the petitioner for managing to get the accused acquitted. Similar complaints were also made to the learned District Judge, Bhavnagar, which is also not in dispute. 5.3 With regard to the contention raised for and on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate, against whom the charges of corruptions were leveled, was entrusted the task of conducting Preliminary Inquiry, is also without any basis, inasmuch as, it is not in dispute that Respondent No.2 was also a part of the Preliminary Inquiry proceedings, where, he had recorded the statement of the key-witness, Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi, and a copy of which was also supplied to the petitioner, and therefore, it cannot be said that the entire burden of conducting the Preliminary Inquiry was thrust upon the learned Magistrate. The Appellant Authority has also found that it would have been better, if, the Preliminary Inquiry had been handed over to some other person, but, in the facts of the present case and more particularly, when, the statements of important witnesses in the case have been recorded by the District Judge, Bhavnagar, himself, in the Preliminary Inquiry, this plea of the petitioner-appellant cannot be accepted. It, therefore, cannot be said that the inquiry is vitiated. The Appellate Authority has considered all these aspects in detail, as under: “22. So far as the other contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding holding of the preliminary inquiry by the Magistrate Mr. Kella, High Court considers it to be appropriate to take and deal with the same here. The Appellate Authority has considered all these aspects in detail, as under: “22. So far as the other contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding holding of the preliminary inquiry by the Magistrate Mr. Kella, High Court considers it to be appropriate to take and deal with the same here. It is true that in the facts of this case, it would have been advisable and better that this preliminary inquiry business would not have been entrusted to the Magistrate, Mr. Kella by the District Judge, Bhavnagar. But it is not the case where the Magistrate, Mr. Kella was the only person who has exclusively conducted the preliminary inquiry. High Court finds that the District Judge himself has taken sufficient care and on the complaint of Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi he had recorded statements of material witnesses by himself in the preliminary inquiry. Those statements were sent to Mr. Kella who was entrusted with the work of conducting preliminary inquiry in the matter. He further recorded statements of some more witnesses and collected other material and then submitted his report to the District Judge, Bhavnagar. In the facts of this case and more particularly where the statements of important witness in the case have been recorded by the District Judge himself in the preliminary inquiry, this peal taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is hardly of any substance and merits. It cannot be taken that the Magistrate Mr. Kella was only person who has undertaken this preliminary inquiry. AT the most, it is a case where the preliminary inquiry may be taken to be conducted by the said magistrate partly and partly by the Dist. Judge, Bhavnagar, who has recorded statements of the material witnesses. So taking into consideration the totality of the facts of this case, it is difficult to hold that on this ground, the inquiry conducted against the delinquent employee vitiates. 23. The object and purpose of holding the preliminary inquiry is to find out whether the complaint made against the delinquent employee has some substance or not. Whatever the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry by the officer conducting the same is not a substantive piece of evidence. Its value is not more than the value of the statements recorded by the Police in a criminal investigation under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.. Whatever the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry by the officer conducting the same is not a substantive piece of evidence. Its value is not more than the value of the statements recorded by the Police in a criminal investigation under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.. The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is to form an opinion by the disciplinary authority whether it is a case where any departmental inquiry has to be initiated against the delinquent employee or not. On the basis of this evidence collected during the preliminary inquiry the charges framed against the delinquent employee cannot be taken to be proved. In the inquiry, charges are to be proved by producing the evidence therein and the delinquent employee has the right of cross-examining the witnesses as well as to produce his defence. So even if, it is taken that in the preliminary inquiry some irregularity has been committed or the officer conducting the said inquiry was bias to some extent, only on this ground, the main departmental inquiry may not vitiated as well as the order of the punishment. Reference here fruitfully be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ‘NARAYAN DATTATRAYA RAMTEERTHAKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA’, reported in 1997 (1) SCC 299 . 5.4 The most important objection raised for and on behalf of the petitioner is that Mr. Mahesh Sindhi, whose deposition and cross-examination was recorded during the inquiry proceedings and which was heavily relied of by the Inquiry Officer, had refused to sign the same. It is true that, if, the deposition and the cross-examination of any witness is not signed by him, then, generally, such a deposition and the cross-examination cannot be taken into consideration for proving the charges against the delinquent. But, in the departmental proceedings, the strict principles of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable. It is not in dispute that the Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi had lodged a complaint against the present petitioner before the District Judge, Bhavnagar, for demanding the bribe of Rs.850/-, as per statement recorded in the Preliminary Inquiry and said Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi has signed the same. Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi participated in the inquiry proceedings and deposed before the Inquiry Officer and he was also cross-examined by the Advocate of the petitioner. However, thereafter, for the reasons best known to him, Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi has signed the same. Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi participated in the inquiry proceedings and deposed before the Inquiry Officer and he was also cross-examined by the Advocate of the petitioner. However, thereafter, for the reasons best known to him, Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi refused to sign the said deposition and the cross-examination. Therefore, non-signing of deposition and cross-examination by Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi cannot vitiate the inquiry proceedings and the Appellate Authority has rightly drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner that in order to help the present petitioner, Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi did not sign his deposition and cross-examination. Moreover, at the time of recording of the deposition and cross-examination of Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi, the petitioner, along with his Advocate was very much present there, but, none of them raised any objection to the same, at any point of time, except, raising a contention that, possibly, Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi had given incorrect facts before the District Judge, Bhavnagar, at the time of Preliminary Inquiry, and therefore, he refused to sigh his deposition and cross-examination. As such, there is nothing on the record to suggest that there are contradictions in the statement given by Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi before the District Judge, Bhavnagar, at the time of Preliminary Inquiry, and the deposition given by him before the Inquiry Officer during inquiry proceedings. In that view of the matter, this contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted and is without any basis. In the facts of the case, the Appellate Authority has rightly held that nonsigning of deposition and cross-examination by Mr. Maheshbhai Sindhi is not fatal to the inquiry proceedings. The relevant observations of the Appellate Authority reads thus: “24. Now High Court may advert to the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the statements of Maheshbhai Bhagwandas Sindhi could not have been relied against the appellant as he has not signed the statements in the inquiry. It is true that Maheshbhai Bhagwandas Sindhi has not signed his statements, which have been recorded by the inquiry officer. His statements recorded by the inquiry officer is not the record as Ex. 47 at page no.117. It is true that Maheshbhai Bhagwandas Sindhi has not signed his statements, which have been recorded by the inquiry officer. His statements recorded by the inquiry officer is not the record as Ex. 47 at page no.117. From the translation of these statements, High Court finds that the inquiry officer put a note below it, “This witness has refused to make his signature on his deposition recorded to day and on reading over the same to him as he was asked to sign therein, he has refused to sign. Therefore, making the note accordingly and I sign as inquiry officer”. From the record of this inquiry, High Court does not find why that person has not signed his statements. Learned Counsel for the appellant, on being asked by the Court, has given out that as statements were not correctly recorded by the inquiry officer, the said witness refused to sign the same. However, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show what was the incorrectness in this recording of the statement of the said witness. The said witness has also not given out any reason good, bad or indifferent for non-signing his statements. The delinquent employee-appellant is an interested person and it is understandable he can say anything but it has to come from the horses mouth. Maheshbhai Bhagwandas Sindhi conspicuously remained silent and only inference which flow there from is that he has deliberately, purposely and with oblique motive has not signed his statements so that if any benefit therefrom can be taken by the delinquent employee-appellant, the same may be taken by him. So to favour the delinquent employee he does appear to have not signed his statements.” 5.5 The Division Bench of this Court in the case of ‘ NIRMALA J. JHALA’ (Supra), in similar case, has held as under: “55. In view of the above discussion, we find that there is substantial material on record to drive home the charge article 1 against the petitioner. The findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer as accepted by the High Court in its recommendations cannot be characterised as perverse or such as no prudent person would ever arrive at. In view of the above discussion, we find that there is substantial material on record to drive home the charge article 1 against the petitioner. The findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer as accepted by the High Court in its recommendations cannot be characterised as perverse or such as no prudent person would ever arrive at. Certain minor discrepancies notwithstanding, which are bound to creep in on account of some passage of time in recording different statements at different stages and on account of number of persons giving their statements during the course of inquiry, we find that there is sufficient material on record to support the findings arrived at during the course of inquiry. None of the discrepancies would shake the foundation of the findings. We have noted that the Inquiry Officer has not believed the say of Shri Jani when he suggested that he could hear the conversation between the petitioner and Shri Gajjar when he was standing outside the chamber of the petitioner on 17.8.93. The Inquiry Officer has also discarded the possibility of the petitioner having threatened Shri Jani. This, however, by itself would not be sufficient for us to hold that the findings of the Inquiry officer and that of the High Court in its recommendations were based on no evidence. We find that the High Court in its recommendations has taken into account all relevant aspects of the matter. We have extensively reproduced portions of the said recommendations. The reasoning therein cannot be faulted. As discussed earlier, this being a case of departmental inquiry where the level of proof required is that of preponderance of probability and not that of proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial we find that there was ample justification for coming to the conclusion that the charge of having demanded illegal gratification was proved against the petitioner. Xxx xxx xxx 57. In the result, we conclude that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the impugned orders in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Xxx xxx xxx 59. In conclusion, we find that the petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.” 20. Reliance placed by the learned Advocate, Mr. Xxx xxx xxx 59. In conclusion, we find that the petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.” 20. Reliance placed by the learned Advocate, Mr. Goswami, appearing for the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in ‘CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER & ANOTHER’ (Supra), pertains to the question of bias with regard to the conduct of inquiry and the authority which took the decision in the matter, where, the report was submitted by the Inquiry Committee should be accepted or not, as the three members of the Committee were also part of the Cantonment Board, which took the decision of accepting the report in the said case. In the context of the facts of the case before the Apex Court, it was held by the Apex Court that a person cannot be a judge in his own case and once, the disciplinary committee finds the incumbent guilty; they cannot sit in the judgment to punish the man on the basis of the opinion formed by them. It was held that the objectivity is the hallmark of the judicial system in our country and the very fact that the disciplinary committee who found the respondent guilty participated in decision making process for finding the respondent guilty and to dismiss him from service is a bias, which is apparent and real. 20.1 But, in the facts of the present case, merely because the Magistrate, against whom the allegations of corruptions were made, submitted the Preliminary Report cannot be said to cause any bias to the petitioner, more particularly, when the disciplinary authority, accepted the report of the Inquiry conducted by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhavnagar, was not part of Preliminary Inquiry. Therefore, there was no question of any bias, as sought to be canvassed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in the facts of the case, and hence, the said judgment relied on by the learned Advocate for the petitioner of bias is not applicable in the facts of this case. 21. Therefore, there was no question of any bias, as sought to be canvassed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in the facts of the case, and hence, the said judgment relied on by the learned Advocate for the petitioner of bias is not applicable in the facts of this case. 21. On a perusal of the inquiry report as well as the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer as well as the documents, which are forming the part of the Inquiry Report and the decision of the appellate authority, the principle of bias is not applicable, as there is no real bias emerging from the facts of this case as pleaded by the petitioner. The petitioner is found guilty of all the three charges leveled against him, on the basis of the evidence, oral as well as the documentary, which have been appreciated during the course of inquiry and which have been also elaborately considered by the Appellate Authority, and therefore, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be interfered with, unless it is shown on behalf of the petitioner that such findings given by the Inquiry Officer and confirmed by the appellate authority are perverse and contrary to the facts and evidence on record. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is not able to point out any perversity in findings arrived at by Inquiry Officer contradictory to the evidence on record. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. 22. For the foregoing reasons the petition fails and is accordingly DISMISSED. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.