JUDGMENT : 1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing. They have no complaint whatsoever about any audio and video quality. I.A. No. 3466 of 2021: 2. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 10 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3466 of 2021 is allowed and the delay of 10 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 614 of 2019: 6. The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 12.07.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 5913 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the original order of punishment dated 13.12.1999, the appellant order dated 06.11.2000 and revisional order dated 27.03.2003 have been refused to be interfered while dismissing the writ petition. 7. The brief facts of the lis which is required to be enumerated read as hereunder: The petitioner/appellant was appointed as a constable with CISF on 03.07.1992. He had gone on routine leave from 05.03.1999 to 24.03.1999 and had left his house in the morning of 24.03.1999 and had reached his unit in the evening of 25.03.1999. The petitioner/appellant received a telephonic call from his brother-in-law and came to know that his wife, namely, Smt. Seema had died in the intervening night of 29/30.03.1999 and all his family members including his father, mother, younger brother and married sister had been arrested by the police on 30.03.1999. The petitioner/appellant apprised his senior Officers about the developments after receiving the telephone call and requested them for leave. The Senior Officers of the petitioner/appellant granted leave for 27 days w.e.f. 08.04.1999 to 04.05.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant went to his home and was shocked to see that the entire household articles were missing and all the doors were found broken and all the family members of the petitioner were in jail in a case registered under section 498A/304 B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant went to his home and was shocked to see that the entire household articles were missing and all the doors were found broken and all the family members of the petitioner were in jail in a case registered under section 498A/304 B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner/appellant, in such a situation, sent another application for extension of leave as he was not medically fit to join back. Finally, the petitioner/appellant resumed his duties on 25.05.1999 and narrated all the events in the leave application to his senior officers and colleagues. The petitioner/appellant was charge sheeted under rule 34 of CISF Rule 1969 on 13.08.1999 for having harassed and tortured his wife Smt. Seema in pursuit of extracting Dowry as a result of which his wife died on the intervening night of 29/30.03.1999 and thereafter disciplinary proceeding was initiated against this petitioner/appellant and the petitioner/appellant participated in the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner/appellant submitted a certificate issued by the CISF from which it transpires that the petitioner/appellant has performed duty w.e.f. 26.03.1999 to 05.04.1999 in the unit. His further case is that in the criminal case he has been discharged but without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service vide order passed on 13.12.1999 against which the petitioner/appellant preferred appeal but the same was dismissed on 06.11.2000 against which a revision was preferred taking into consideration the ground of his discharge in the criminal case but even the revision was dismissed by the revisional authority on 27.03.2003 on the ground of limitation. The petitioner/appellant in the backdrop of this, approached to this Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as also the revisional authority. The petitioner/appellant in the backdrop of this, approached to this Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as also the revisional authority. The Writ Court had heard the parties and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner/appellant has failed to satisfy the Court on the point of suppression of fact regarding the criminal case and he is not able to provide any medical certificate to the effect that due to his illness he was absent for 20 days as also considering the fact that he is not able to satisfy this court on the point of suppressing the fact regarding criminal case and he is not able to provide any medical certificate to the effect that due to his illness he was absent for 20 days. It is well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle him for appointment to the post as a member of disciplined force, against which the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 8. Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact about the finding recorded by the enquiry officer so far it relates to the charge No. 1 pertaining to involvement of the petitioner/appellant in the alleged murder of his wife. He further submits that the enquiry officer without appreciating the fact that the complainant has not agreed for cross-examination on the pretext that the criminal case was pending but subsequently the result of criminal case has come by way of discharging the petitioner/appellant from criminal liability, therefore, the said charge ought not to have been proved by the enquiry officer in absence of evidence. He further submits that so far as charge No. 2 is concerned, even the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the petitioner/appellant cannot be lodged with respect to the commission of the misconduct, irregularities by suppressing the fact about the involvement in the criminal case rather the petitioner/appellant has given due information immediately after resuming his duties. Thus, the submission has been made that since the learned Single Judge has not appreciated all these aspects of the matter, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Per contra, Mr. Thus, the submission has been made that since the learned Single Judge has not appreciated all these aspects of the matter, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. 9. Per contra, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, defending the order impugned, has submitted that there is no infirmity because the enquiry officer has proceeded on the basis of the fact that the wife of the petitioner/appellant has been murdered by poisoning and immediately after receiving the information, the petitioner/appellant made an application for grant of leave which was sanctioned but the petitioner/appellant has failed to communicate the aforesaid aspect of the matter from the competent authority while sanctioning the leave. It has further been submitted that petitioner/appellant has also been implicated in the aforesaid criminal case but even after resuming his duty he has not disclosed it to the disciplinary authority about the involvement in the criminal case, therefore, the petitioner/appellant has committed gross misconduct by suppressing the material fact pertaining to involvement in the criminal case and the same has been proved by the enquiry officer basis upon which the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service which has been affirmed by the appellate as also by the revisional authority. He further submits that there is a concurrent finding recorded by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority, as such, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not exercise the power of judicial review by reappraisal of the evidence for reversal of the fact finding recorded by the enquiry officer. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer certain admitted facts which are relevant for adjudication of the issue involved in this case. The petitioner/appellant while working as Constable in the CISF had gone on routine leave from 05.03.1999 to 24.03.1999 and had left his house in the morning of 24.03.1999 and had reached his unit in the evening of 25.03.1999. The petitioner/appellant while working as Constable in the CISF had gone on routine leave from 05.03.1999 to 24.03.1999 and had left his house in the morning of 24.03.1999 and had reached his unit in the evening of 25.03.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner/appellant received a telephonic call from his brother-in-law and came to know that his wife, namely, Smt. Seema had died in the intervening night of 29/30.03.1999 and a criminal case has been instituted in which his father, mother, younger brother and married sister had been arrested by the police on 30.03.1999. The petitioner/appellant was also involved in the said criminal case. He made an application for grant of leave for 27 days w.e.f. 08.04.1999 to 04.05.1999. He reached to his home and returned on 25.05.1999. The petitioner/appellant thereafter was charge sheeted under Section 34 of CISF Rule 1969 on 19.08.1999 for having harassed and tortured his wife Smt. Seema in pursuit of extracting Dowry as a result of which his wife died on the intervening night of 29/30.03.1999. The charges with imputation is being reproduced herein-below: “Article of Charge-I Gross misconduct in that No. 924524581 Const. Jang Bahadur Singh of CISF Unit BTPS (DVC) Bokaro Thermal, harassed and tortured his wife Smt. Seema in pursuit of extracting dowry as a result of which his wife died on the intervening night of 29/30.03.99. Article of Charge-II Gross misconduct in that No. 924525481 Const. Jang Bahadur Singh of CISF Unit BTPS (DVC) Bokaro Thermal suppressed the fact of Criminal Case lodged against him in Budana P.S. by his father-in-law Shri Bhim Singh vide case No. 60/99 U/s 498A/304 B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Act.” 11. The petitioner/appellant has participated in the disciplinary proceeding wherein both the charges have been found to be proved by the enquiry officer and while accepting the same, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 13.12.1999. The petitioner/appellant being aggrieved with the order passed by the disciplinary authority had preferred an appeal but was dismissed on 06.11.2000. Thereafter, he preferred a revision on 22.01.2003 on the ground that he had been discharged from the criminal liability pertaining to criminal case lodged against him along with the family members but the revision was also dismissed on the ground of limitation on 27.03.2003. 12. Thereafter, he preferred a revision on 22.01.2003 on the ground that he had been discharged from the criminal liability pertaining to criminal case lodged against him along with the family members but the revision was also dismissed on the ground of limitation on 27.03.2003. 12. The issue which has been raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant are: (1) The enquiry officer has not considered the fact about the discharge from the criminal liability from the criminal case instituted for the alleged death of his wife. (2) The enquiry officer has not considered while proving the charge No. 1 that the complainant, i.e. his father-in-law has although deposed in examination-in-chief but declined his cross examination as also declined to answer the query made by the enquiry officer but even then the charge has been found to be proved by the enquiry officer. So far as the charge No. 2 is concerned, submission has been made that the fact about over stay and involvement in the criminal case has already been explained to the disciplinary authority but that has not been considered in the right perspective. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, on the other hand, has submitted that this Court may not exercise the power of judicial review in a case where the administrative authority had passed an order for dismissal of service taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner/appellant was a member of discipline force and is involved in the demand of dowry as also the murder of his wife and the suppression of fact about the involvement in the criminal case. His further ground is that the petitioner/appellant had been provided with all opportunities to defend himself, therefore, this Court may not reappraise evidence recorded by the enquiry officer. 13. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and considering the memorandum of charge, deems it fit and proper to scrutinize the finding recorded by the enquiry officer but very surprisingly the entire report has not been appended either by the petitioner/appellant before the writ Court or before this court as also the disciplinary authority has not brought the enquiry report before the writ court, however, extract of the enquiry report has been enclosed as under Annexure-5. 14. 14. We have gone across the extract of the enquiry report and found therefrom that one Bhim Singh, father of the deceased wife of the petitioner/appellant, has complained about illegal demand of dowry and mental and physical torture meted out with his daughter. We have also found therefrom that the complainant has recorded his deposition under examination-in-chief but when he has been sought to be cross-examined by the petitioner/appellant, he had pointed blank refused to answer by stating that no evidence would be given since the matter is pending before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction as also he has refused to put his signature in any of the document. It further appears that the other witnesses, i.e. witnesses No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have also deposed before the enquiry officer that save and except their statement no statement would be given in cross-examination as also no answer to the query made by the enquiry officer will be furnished. In the concluding part, the enquiry officer has reached to the conclusion that the charge No. 1 pertaining to commission of murder of the wife of petitioner/appellant is proved. So far as the charge No. 2 is concerned, the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that the charge No. 2 is also proved. 15. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made by the enquiry officer about the deposition recorded on behalf of the witnesses, is required to consider as to whether any evidence has been placed before the enquiry officer for proving the charge No. 1 so that the argument which has been advanced by the learned ASGI that the writ Court cannot reappraise the evident, may be answered. 16. There is no dispute about the fact that the writ Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of power of judicial review cannot reappraise the evidence for reversing the finding recorded by the enquiry officer but the reappraisal of evidence will only be said to be its reappraisal if at all there is any evidence in support of proving the charge. We have gone across the finding recorded by the enquiry officer so far as charge No. 1 is concerned and found that only deposition has been recorded as has been deposed by the witnesses but all the witnesses have recorded only their version and they have refused to be cross-examined by the petitioner/appellant, therefore, in such circumstances, where the witnesses have recorded their statement but refused to be cross-examined by the delinquent employee, can the said record of deposition be treated to be valid evidence for proving the charge, the answer of this Court would be that if any witness is recording his deposition in course of enquiry and if the delinquent employee wishes to cross-examine, the requirement of the process is that the said opportunity to cross-examine the witness must be provided to the delinquent employee. The matter would have been different if the delinquent employee would have not shown his wish to cross-examine but herein the fact is otherwise as would be evident from the extract of the enquiry report as under Annexure-5 that the complainant and the witnesses Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have deposed before the enquiry officer but they have refused to be cross-examined and even they have refused to answer the query made by the enquiry officer and in that view of the matter, according to our considered view such evidence cannot be said to be an evidence in the eye of law for proving the charge, as such, it is not a case of reappraisal of evidence rather according to our view it will be a case of no evidence so far as charge No. 1 is concerned but certainly so far as charge No. 2 is concerned, it cannot be doubted that the petitioner/appellant being an employee of disciplined force when he received information from his brother-in-law he should have apprised the competent authority about the entire incidence more particularly, the fact that he has also been involved in the criminal case. It might be that subsequently the petitioner/appellant has been discharged along with his family members from the criminal liabilities but the foremost question is that if a public servant has proceeded on duty and he is involved in a criminal case is it not his duty to apprise the disciplinary authority? It might be that subsequently the petitioner/appellant has been discharged along with his family members from the criminal liabilities but the foremost question is that if a public servant has proceeded on duty and he is involved in a criminal case is it not his duty to apprise the disciplinary authority? In our view, the petitioner/appellant being a member of discipline force was required to apprise the authority concerned with respect to the reason to proceed on leave and if he is being involved in the criminal case it ought to have been brought to the notice of the competent authority but it is the admitted case of the petitioner/appellant that he had not informed the concerned authority while proceeding on leave as also after resuming his duty he had not informed about the implication in the criminal case, therefore, according to our considered view, charge No. 2 is considered to be very serious misconduct for a member of discipline force, therefore, even if an enquiry officer has not recorded reason for proving the charge but when the fact about the same has been admitted as would be evident from the stayal application and the admission on the part of the petitioner/appellant that he had not informed about his involvement in criminal case, meaning thereby, the aforesaid charge has been admitted and when the charge has been admitted there is no need to proceed for an enquiry because the enquiry is to be conducted only in a case of dispute but when the fact is in admission there is no requirement of enquiry to reach to the truth. 17. Now, what would be the effect if the charge No. 1 is found to be not proved as has been recorded by this Court hereinabove and in that circumstances can the order of punishment of dismissal be reversed even if the charge No. 2 is found to be proved. 17. Now, what would be the effect if the charge No. 1 is found to be not proved as has been recorded by this Court hereinabove and in that circumstances can the order of punishment of dismissal be reversed even if the charge No. 2 is found to be proved. The answer of this Court would be that even if the charge No. 1 has not been found to be proved by the enquiry officer as has been observed by this Court above but taking into consideration the fact that charge No. 2 which has been found to be proved being serious in nature for a member of disciplined force, where he has suppressed the fact about his involvement in a criminal case, therefore, the said charge having been found to be admitted and proved being a serious misconduct committed on the part of the delinquent employee, in that view of the matter, if the order of punishment of dismissal has been passed, it would not be appropriate to interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of judicial review. 18. This Court is coming to such finding taking into consideration the nature of duty since the petitioner/appellant was a member of disciplined force and as such, the parameter to discharge of duty would be required to be considered in a different pedestal from the civil public servant. 19. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the impugned order, however, we have observed hereinabove so far as the charge No. 1 is concerned, is found not proved but taking into consideration the fact in entirety as also the fact that charge No. 2 is proved, we are having no reason to interfere with the outcome of the finding recorded, accordingly, the instant appeal fails and stands dismissed.