Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 393 (TRI)

Arindam Ghosh v. State of Tripura

2022-11-03

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - The present writ appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 25.4.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 266 of 2011 and W.P.(C) No. 488 of 2011 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed both of the writ petitions. 2. The factual background of the case is as under: By a memorandum dated 29.6.2006 vide No.F.11(6)-GA (AR)/05/1406-1411, appellant, Arindam Ghosh and his colleagues, Sudip Sinha and Siddhartha Sengupta were imputed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Tripura in the GA (AR) Department on the charge of misconduct and it was proposed under the said memorandum that Departmental Proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [for short CCS (CCA) Rules] would be carried out against them on the following charge: 'ARTICLE NO. I. That the said (1) Sri Arindam Ghosh, Assistant Engineer, while functioning as Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Health Engineering Sub-Division No-XVI, Ambassa, Dhalai during the period from 22.08.2000 to 18.07.2003, (2) Sri Sudip Sinha, while functioning as Jr. Engineer attached to the office of the S.D.O., P.H.E. Sub-Division No-XVI, Ambassa, Dhalai during the period from 10.08.1999 till date and (3) Sri Siddartha Sengupta while functioning as Junior Engineer attached to the office of the S.D.O., P.H.E. Sub-Division No-XVI, Ambassa, Dhalai during the period from 26.09.2000 to 06.07.2002 failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in so far as they failed to supervise the construction of 40,000 gallon capacity of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) overhead reservoir of 15.30 Mtr. staging height taken up under the scheme of 'Accelerated Rural Water Supply Scheme (ARWS) at Kulai', Ambassa vide work order No.F.7(5)/EE/PHE/KD-II/8201-8208 dated 30.02.1998 issued by the Executive Engineer, PHE Division No-II, Kumarghat. After the so-called execution of the construction of the work, measurements were recorded in the measurement books (MB) by Sri Sudip Sinha & Sri Siddartha Sengupta, both Junior Engineer and 50% of the measurement were test checked by Sri Arindam Ghosh, the then S.D.O., P.H.E. Sub-Division No-XVI, Ambassa. Though the work was shown to have been completed on 17.11.2003, it was subsequently found that the said overhead tank was defective and was completely useless. They were negligent in supervising work and giving technical guidance. As a result, the construction of reservoir was found defective after completion and could not be made operational. It was completely useless. Though the work was shown to have been completed on 17.11.2003, it was subsequently found that the said overhead tank was defective and was completely useless. They were negligent in supervising work and giving technical guidance. As a result, the construction of reservoir was found defective after completion and could not be made operational. It was completely useless. The concrete used for the overhead tank was inadequately compacted resulting in air voids in the mass of concrete. Re-inforcement cover of the cylindrical wall of the tank was inadequate and already rusted. Stone chips used in the concrete were not proper grading. These defects resulted in water percolation from the overhead tank and rendered the structure completely useless. For negligence of them the State Government had to incur a financial loss to the tune of Rs.15,15,243/- only paid to the contractor in six running Bills. By their above act, Shri Arindam Ghosh, the then SDO., PHE, Shri Sudip Sinha, Junior Engineer & Shri Siddartha Sengupta, Junior Engineer committed gross misconduct which is quite unbecoming of a Government servant and thus, they violated Rule-3 of the Tripura Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1988.' 3. The statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehavior in support of the said Article of Charge was placed as well by the said memorandum dated 29.6.2006 and the memorandum along with its enclosures was communicated to the appellant and the other two accused officers asking them to submit their written statement of defence within a period of 10 days. 4. Manifestly, the charge crystallized that the appellant and his accused colleagues were entrusted with the supervision of the construction of a of Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) overhead reservoir of 40,000 gallon capacity and 15.30 Mtr. staging height under 'Accelerated Rural Water Supply Scheme (ARWS) at Kulai'. After construction, it was found that the said overhead tank was defective and completely useless which occurred due to negligence of the appellant and his accused colleagues in supervising the work. As a result, the reservoir could not be made operational. The charge contained that reinforcement cover of the cylindrical wall of the tank was inadequate and already rusted. Even the stone chips used in the concrete were not of proper grading. As a result, the reservoir could not be made operational. The charge contained that reinforcement cover of the cylindrical wall of the tank was inadequate and already rusted. Even the stone chips used in the concrete were not of proper grading. Thus, it was imputed that the original writ petitioners (one of whom is the appellant herein) were completely negligent in supervising the construction work and due to their negligence, the defects resulted in water percolation from the overhead tank and rendered the structure completely useless which caused financial loss to the tune of Rs.15,15,243/- to the State-respondents and the accused officers thereby committed gross misconduct which was unbecoming of a Government servant and a violation of Rule-3 of Tripura Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1988. 5. The appellant and the other two accused officers denied the charge by filing their written statement of defence. Since the Disciplinary Authority was not convinced by their defence, Disciplinary Proceedings continued against them. Shri Shantanu, commissioner of Departmental Inquiry, Government of Tripura held the inquiry. After holding a full-fledged enquiry, the said Inquiry Officer had drawn up report on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and held that among the three accused officers, the charge against accused officer, Siddhartha Sengupta, a Jr. Engineer at the relevant time was not proved because, none of the witnesses gave any incriminating statement against him. The Inquiry Officer held that prosecution successfully established the case against the appellant namely, Arindam Ghosh and his colleague Sudip Sinha who was a Jr. Engineer in the office of the S.D.O., P.H.E. Sub-Division No. XVI at Ambassa. It was proved that the concrete used in the wall of the tank was inadequately compacted resulting in air voids in the mass of the concrete and moreover the stone chips used in the concrete were not of proper grading. The technical expert committee constituted by the State government also found that the construction portion of the overhead tank i.e. the cylindrical wall portion plus the top dome was supervised by appellant, Arindam Ghosh and accused-officer Sudip Sinha for whose negligence, the defects in the construction occurred which had made the said overhead tank completely useless and non-operational. The technical expert committee constituted by the State government also found that the construction portion of the overhead tank i.e. the cylindrical wall portion plus the top dome was supervised by appellant, Arindam Ghosh and accused-officer Sudip Sinha for whose negligence, the defects in the construction occurred which had made the said overhead tank completely useless and non-operational. The relevant extract of the report of the Inquiry Officer is as under: ' .After taking into consideration of the submission made by both sides, I find that- (a) The Prosecution could establish that concrete used in the wall of the tank was inadequately compacted resulting in air voids in the mass of concrete and the stone chips used in the concrete were not of proper grading observed by the technical expert committee (Exbt. S/2). The defence could not counter this satisfactorily. The construction of this portion of the overhead tank i.e. cylindrical wall portion plus the top dome was supervised by the A.O. Sri Sudip Sinha, the then Jr. Engineer and Sri Arindam Ghosh, A.O. was the Asstt. Engineer. As per MB No.462 (Exbt. S/5), the cost of this work comes to Rs.2,85,155/-. (b) The Prosecution could not prove the charge against the A.O. Sri Siddhartha Sengupta, Jr. Enginer who supervised the construction of bottom ring beam and bottom slab. None of the prosecution witness has either stated or adduced any evidence showing defect in construction of the bottom ring beam and bottom slab. Though, it may be a different fact that for technical reasons best known to the expert committee, which could not be found in their report (Exbt. S/2), they recommended dismantling of the entire tank portion including bottom slab portion also (excluding staging) and its reconstruction. So, Sri Siddhartha Sengupta, A.O. cannot be held guilty for it. (c) Since, I have already stated at (a) above that the prosecution has proved that the compaction was not done properly in construction of cylindrical portion of the overhead tank and the stone chips used were not of proper grading which is sufficient to prove that the A.O.s Sri Arindam Ghosh & Sri Sudip Sinha failed to supervise the construction of cylindrical wall portion plus dome. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to go into the merits of the allegation made by Sri Arindam Ghosh, A.O. that the inner surface of the overhead tank was chiseled by the contractor on instruction of the then Executive Engineer just before the visit of the inquiry committee. In view of the above, I find and hold that the prosecution could prove the charge against the A.O.s namely (i) Sri Arindam Ghosh, & (ii) Sri Sudip Sinha that they failed to supervise the construction of 40,000 gallon capacity of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) overhead reservoir of 15.30 Mtr. Staging height taken up under the scheme of 'Accelerated Rural Water Supply Scheme (ARWS) at Kulai', Ambassa. But the prosecution could not prove the charge against Sri Siddhartha Sengupta, A.O. In the result, decision on Point No.(i) is given in affirmative and decided in favour of the Prosecution for the Accused Officers namely (i) Sri Arindam Ghosh, & (ii) Sri Sudip Sinha and against the defence. However, decision on Point No.(i) is given in negative and decided in favour of the defence and against the prosecution for the A.O. Sri Siddhartha Sengupta. Point No.(ii):- Since the decision on Point No.(i) is given in affirmative and decided in favour of the prosecution for the Accused Officers namely (i) Sri Arindam Ghosh, & (ii) Sri Sudip Sinha, therefore, I find and hold that the prosecution could prove the charge against the A.O.s namely (i) Sri Arindam Ghosh, & (ii) Sri Sudip Sinha that they failed to supervise the construction of 40,000 gallon capacity of reinforced cement concrete (RCC) overhead reservoir of 15.30 mtr. Staging height taken up under the scheme of 'Accelerated Rural Water Supply Scheme (ARWS) at Kulai', Ambassa. But the prosecution could not prove the charge against Sri Siddhartha Sengupta, A.O. as discussed at point No.(i) above, therefore, decision on this point No.(ii) for the A.O. Sri Siddhartha Sengupta is given in negative and decided in favour of the defence and against the prosecution. In the result, I hold that the Accused Officers namely (i) Sri Arindam Ghosh, & (ii) Sri Sudip Sinha failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant violating Rule-3 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. 9. In the result, I hold that the Accused Officers namely (i) Sri Arindam Ghosh, & (ii) Sri Sudip Sinha failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a Government servant violating Rule-3 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. 9. As an upshot of the discussions made herein above the Point No.(i) & (ii) has been decided in favour of the prosecution in respect of the Accused Officers namely (i) Sri Arindam Ghosh, & (ii) Sri Sudip Sinha. Whereas, the prosecution could not prove the charge against the A.O. Sri Siddhartha Sengupta. Therefore, after due consideration of both oral and documentary evidences of both parties and their written briefs and my individual assessment, I find and hold that the prosecution could prove the charge drawn up under Article-I of the Annexure-I of the instant proceeding/charge Memo against the A.O.s namely (i) Sri Arindam Ghosh, & (ii) Sri Sudip Sinha. But the prosecution could not prove the charge against Sri Siddhartha Sengupta, A.O. and it is decided accordingly.' 6. After the Inquiring Authority submitted its report (Annexure- 4 to the writ petition), the charged officers were served with a copy of the report by memorandum dated 10.2.2010 (Annexure- 4 to the writ petition) and they were asked to submit their written representation, if any, against the findings of the Inquiring Authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of the memo. 7. Each of the charged officers furnished their written representations within the stipulated period of time. The Disciplinary Authority, after consideration of their representation provisionally decided to impose the following penalty on them: 'i) The pay of Accused Officers namely Shri Arindam Ghosh, Assistant Engineer and Shri Sudip Sinha, Junior Engineer shall be reduced to the lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 3(three) years with cumulative effect; ii) The actual financial loss to the Government which work out to Rs.2,85,115/- (Two lakhs eighty five thousand one hundred and fifteen only) shall be recovered from the Accused Officers Shri Arindam Ghosh, Assistant Engineer and Shri Sudip Sinha, Junior Engineer, equally from their salary.' 8. After consultation with Tripura Public Service Commission in terms of the Rule 15(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and further considering all aspects of the matter, the Disciplinary Authority by memorandum dated 08.12.2010 under No.F.11(6)-GA(AR)/2005/2147- 2151 imposed the following penalty on appellant, Arindam Ghosh and accused officer Sudip Sinha: 'i) The pay of Accused Officers namely Shri Arindam Ghosh, Assistant Engineer and Shri Sudip Sinha, Junior Engineer be reduced to the lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 3(three) years with cumulative effect; ii) The actual financial loss to the Government which work out to Rs.2,85,115/- (Two lakhs eighty five thousand one hundred and fifteen only) be recovered from the Accused Officers Shri Arindam Ghosh, Assistant Engineer and Shri Sudip Sinha, Junior Engineer, equally from their salary.' 9. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiring Authority in respect of accused appellant and Siddhartha Sengupta (Jr. Engineer) and closed the proceedings against him. 10. Against the said order of penalty, the appellant filed departmental appeal before the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura (Appellate Authority) by filing a memorandum of appeal dated 02.2.2011 on the following grounds: (i) The Expert Committee appointed by the Government while conducting on the spot inquiry into the alleged negligence of the appellant in supervising the construction work of the overhead tank had taken a videograph, copy of which was not furnished to the appellant which caused prejudice to the appellant in making his defence before the Inquiring Officer. (ii) Appellant wanted to further cross-examine Shri R.K. Majumder, Chairman of the Expert Committee. He was also summoned by the Inquiring Authority for further cross-examination by the appellant. But, said Shri R.K. Majumder did not turn up before the Inquiring Authority. As a result, the appellant was prejudiced in his defence. (iii) Similarly, Shri Bishu Debbarma, Executive Engineer who was also a member of the expert committee did not also turn up before the Inquiring Authority for further cross-examination by the appellant which affected defence of the appellant. (iv) The expert committee held spot inquiry in absence of the appellant and submitted report without giving any opportunity to the appellant to offer an explanation before the said technical expert committee. (iv) The expert committee held spot inquiry in absence of the appellant and submitted report without giving any opportunity to the appellant to offer an explanation before the said technical expert committee. (v) Shri Bishu Debbarma, Executive Engineer who was also entrusted with the supervision of the construction work was made a member of the expert committee, which was completely unfair and illegal. 11. The said Departmental Appellate Authority by an order dated 24.5.2011 under No.F.11(6)-GA(AR)2005/1019-1020 upheld the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and dismissed the appeal observing as under: '4. Charges framed against the Charged Officers were proved during the inquiry. After consideration of all aspects and the views of the TPSC, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of reduction in pay along with recovery of financial loss caused to the Government from the Charged Officers, Shri Arindam Ghosh and Shri Sudip Sinha. 5. Issues raised by the Appellant: 5.1 Document in Sl. No.7 of Annexure-III of the charge sheet is a videograph CD of the Kulai Overhead Tank, containing the report of the Technical Expert Committee, constituted for investigation of the construction of the tank, under the Chairmanship of Shri Ranjit Majumder. This CD was not supplied to the A.O. by the P.O. inspite of an order from the I.A. From records it appears that Sri Ranjit Majumder has submitted his investigation report along with videograph CD to the Deputy Secretary, PWD and that during inspection of the listed documents mentioned in Annexure-III of the charge-sheet, the PO did not place the CD before the I.O. However, the inquiry was held based on available records. 5.2 Prosecution witnesses Shri R.K. Majumder and Shri Bishnu Debbarma were not available for cross examination even though notices were issued and the I.A. closed the chapter of cross examination of both these witnesses. The contention of the A.O. is not correct. In order sheet dated 19.05.09 I.A. has noted that in consultation with the P.O. and the I.O. further scope was given to the prosecution in this regard. 6. The disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted as per available records based on preponderance of probability. In case some documents are not available, the proceeding has to be dealt based on available records and corroborative evidence after giving reasonable opportunity to the charged officer. In the instant case, Disciplinary Authority appears to have taken such an approach. 6. The disciplinary proceedings are to be conducted as per available records based on preponderance of probability. In case some documents are not available, the proceeding has to be dealt based on available records and corroborative evidence after giving reasonable opportunity to the charged officer. In the instant case, Disciplinary Authority appears to have taken such an approach. After careful consideration of all issues raised in the appeal petition, I find no merit/new points in the contention of Shri Arindam Ghosh for setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and the order of Disciplinary Authority is upheld.' 12. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the Departmental Appellate Authority, appellant, Arindam Ghosh filed W.P.(C) 266 of 2011 claiming following relieves: '(i) To issue rule to the respondents to show cause as to why the inquiry report (Annexure 4 to the writ petition), punishment order (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and appellate order (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) should not be declared bad and void. (ii) To quash the same accordingly for being born and fostered in bad faith of the Respondents, being shaped without affording the principle of natural justice, and without following the rule of evidence to find the petitioner guilty.' 13. Accused officer, Sudip Sinha claimed similar relieves by filing W.P.(C) No.488 of 2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. The State-respondents filed counter affidavit(s) to resist the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge in which it was asserted on behalf of the State-respondents that writ petitioners A. Ghosh (Appellant herein) and Sudip Sinha completely failed to supervise the construction of 40,000 gallon capacity Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) overhead reservoir at Kulai, Ambassa as a result of which, the reservoir was found defective and it could not be made operational. The said defects resulted in huge financial loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.15,15,243/-. The State-respondents further asserted before the learned Single Judge that a technical expert committee comprising of four Sr. The said defects resulted in huge financial loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.15,15,243/-. The State-respondents further asserted before the learned Single Judge that a technical expert committee comprising of four Sr. Engineers of P.W.D. investigated into the causes of defects in the said overhead tank and came to the conclusion that negligence of the writ petitioners in supervising the work and their failure in giving proper technical guidance to the contractor and labourers and inadequate reinforcement cover of the cylindrical wall of the tank as well as the use of substandard stone chips in the concrete resulted in water percolation from the overhead tank and rendered the structure completely useless. The respondents claimed in their counter reply that all documents including the copy of the video CD were supplied to the writ petitioners and they were given full opportunity of hearing before the Inquiring Authority. It was stated that the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners against the penalty imposed on them was also duly considered by the Departmental Appellate Authority and the said appeal was rejected by the departmental appellate authority by a detailed order. 15. The counsel appearing for the writ petitioners argued before the learned Single Judge that the Inquiring Authority did not examine two vital witnesses namely, Shri R.K. Majumder who was the Chairman of the technical expert committee and Shri Bishu Kumar Debbarma another member of the said technical expert committee. As a result, the writ petitioners were deprived of the opportunity of cross-examination of those two vital witnesses. Learned counsel of the writ petitioner also argued before the learned Single Judge that the principles of natural justice were not followed in letter and spirit during the disciplinary proceedings held against the writ petitioners for which, the said proceedings were liable to be quashed. 16. The State-counsel, on the other hand, supported the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and urged before the learned Single Judge for setting aside the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. 17. Having found no merit in the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge dismissed both of the writ petitions observing as under: ' .7. The aforesaid findings are technical in nature, which, in turn, are based on the Technical Expert Committee. 17. Having found no merit in the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge dismissed both of the writ petitions observing as under: ' .7. The aforesaid findings are technical in nature, which, in turn, are based on the Technical Expert Committee. Whether the concrete used in the wall of the tank was inadequately compacted resulting in air voids in the mass of concrete and the stone chips used in the concrete were not of proper grading (as?) are matters which could be easily observed by the technical committee (Exbt.S/2). It is not within the province of a writ court to reappreciate the evidence recorded by the Technical Expert Committee. However, the finding that the construction of the reservoir was found defective after completion and could not be made operational; it was completely useless, are self-evident or res ipsa loquitor. No formal proof is necessary in a case of this nature. It is not the case of the petitioner that the reservoir constructed under his very nose is not defective and is really operational. Judicial review in a case of this nature, which requires examination by technical expert, is extremely limited. The legal position is best described in the words of Chief Justice Neely quoted with approval by the Apex Court in Jal Mahal Resorts (P) Ltd. v. K. P. Sharma and others, (2014) 8 SCC 804 , at page 863, which are in the following terms: '140. At this juncture, we take note of two overriding considerations which combined, narrow the scope of review. The first is that of deference to the views of administrative experts and the other we take assistance from the words of Chief Justice Neely who expressed as follows: 'I have very few illusions about my own limitations as a judge and from those limitations I generalise to the inherent limitations of all appellate courts reviewing rare cases.' The learned Chief Justice further observed as follows: 'I am not an accountant, electrical engineer, financier, banker, stock broker, or systems management analyst. It is the height of folly to expect judges intelligently to review a 5000 page record addressing the intricacies of public utility operation. It is not the function of a judge to act as a super board, or with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for that of the administrator. It is the height of folly to expect judges intelligently to review a 5000 page record addressing the intricacies of public utility operation. It is not the function of a judge to act as a super board, or with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for that of the administrator. The result is a theory of review that limits the extent to which the discretion of the expert may be scrutinized by the non-expert judge. It was suggested that the alternative for the court is to desist itself from interference on technical matters, where all the advantages of expertise lie with the agencies. If the court were to review fully the decision of an expert body such as State Board of Medical Examiners, it would find itself wandering amid the maze of therapeutics or boggling at the mysteries of the pharmacopoeia.' 8. I may also reproduce below the scope of judicial review in a departmental enquiry propounded by the Apex Court in High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil and another, (2000) 1 SCC 416 , at page 422 : '16. The Division Bench of the High Court seems to have approached the case as though it was an appeal against the order of the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High Court. Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the enquiry has been properly conducted. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the enquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.' (Italics supplied) 9. In my judgment, the instant case is one without fear of contradiction that there is definitely some evidence, i.e. the evidence of the Technical Expert Committee, on which the findings of the enquiry officer can be based. Once it is so held, it is not the business of this Court to examine the adequacy or even the reliability of that evidence. After all, the role of this Court is only a secondary role, whereas the role of the disciplinary authority is a primary role. This Court cannot usurp the function of the disciplinary authority. Though some witnesses were not examined by the enquiry officer despite repeated request to that effect made by the petitioner, the findings of the Technical Expert Committee, which was duly exhibited as Exbt.S/2 by the Department, and the evidence of PW-4 (BK Debbarma, the then jurisdictional Executive Engineer) are not assailable and such evidence, in any case, can be said to constitute some evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner in a departmental enquiry. It is true that such evidence may not be adequate to prove the guilt of that petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, but then, we are here not dealing with a criminal case; that makes all the difference. 10. The result of the foregoing discussion is that there is no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. Interim order, if any stands vacated. WP(C) No.488 of 2011 As the facts in this case and the facts in the foregoing case are on all fours, this writ petition must also meet the same fate. Resultantly, this writ petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed without costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.' 18. Interim order, if any stands vacated. WP(C) No.488 of 2011 As the facts in this case and the facts in the foregoing case are on all fours, this writ petition must also meet the same fate. Resultantly, this writ petition has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed without costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.' 18. Accused-officer, Arindam Ghosh has filed the present appeal challenging the said judgment of the learned Single Judge. We have heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant along with Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned advocate. Heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. representing the State-respondents. 19. The appellant has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge mainly on the following grounds: (i) Shri R.K. Majumder, Chairman of the technical expert committee did not turn up for cross-examination by the appellant before the Inquiring Authority. As a result, the appellant was prejudiced in his defence. (ii) The appellant was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the members of the technical expert committee on the videograph taken by such committee during their spot investigation. This apart, the technical expert committee held the said spot investigation in absence of the appellant. As a result, appellant was deprived of the opportunity of offering an explanation before the technical expert committee. (iii) Shri Bishu Kumar Debbarma, Executive Engineer, who was also entrusted with the supervision of the construction work of the said reservoir was included in the technical expert committee as a member, which was completely illegal and against the principles of natural justice. 20. Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued before us that the principles of natural justice were not followed by the Disciplinary Authority in conducting the Disciplinary Proceedings against the appellant for which, the entire Disciplinary Proceedings against him is liable to be quashed. 21. The State-counsel, on the other hand, has argued that full opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant during Disciplinary Proceedings held against him. Learned counsel has contended that the appellant also availed the opportunity of filing an appeal before the Departmental Appellate Authority. The Departmental Appellate Authority decided the appeal on merit by a reasoned judgment. 21. The State-counsel, on the other hand, has argued that full opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant during Disciplinary Proceedings held against him. Learned counsel has contended that the appellant also availed the opportunity of filing an appeal before the Departmental Appellate Authority. The Departmental Appellate Authority decided the appeal on merit by a reasoned judgment. According to the State-counsel, High Court can only exercise its limited jurisdiction to interfere with the order passed in a Departmental Proceedings only when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that errors of law or procedural error has occurred resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel has argued that since the appellant has been penalized in Departmental Proceedings on the charge of gross misconduct in terms of the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute after providing full opportunity of hearing to him, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority do not call for any interference by this Court. 22. We have considered the submissions made before us by learned counsel representing the parties. We have also perused the entire record of the case. 23. The Apex Court has examined the scope of judicial review in service matters in a catena of decisions. In State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. S. Sree Rama Rao reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723 , the Apex Court has succinctly held that the High Court is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authority holding disciplinary proceedings against a public servant. Observation of the Apex Court in the said judgment is as under: '7....The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it 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. Where there is some evidence, which the authority 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 in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence...... '. 24. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 : ( AIR 1996 SC 484 ), the Apex Court held that in disciplinary proceedings when the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority receives support from the evidence, the disciplinary authority can hold the charged officer guilty and the court/tribunal cannot sit over the decision of the disciplinary authority as an appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at its own findings on such evidence. In the said judgment the Apex Court observed as under: '12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [ (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR 1964 SC 364 (1964) 1 LLJ 38 ], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.' 25. Similarly, in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 : ( AIR 2011 SC 1931 ) Apex Court held that question whether evidence against the charged officer was adequate or reliable in the departmental proceeding would not be a ground for interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority if it is seen that enquiry has been fairly conducted and the findings are also based on evidence. Observation of the Apex Court is as under: '7. Observation of the Apex Court is as under: '7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.' 26. In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 : ( AIR 2015 SC 545 ), the Apex Court laid down the following parameters for the High Courts while exercising power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution on similar issue: '13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.' 27. Same ratio has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 471 wherein the Apex Court held as under: '28. It is thus well settled that the Constitutional Courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Same ratio has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and Others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 471 wherein the Apex Court held as under: '28. It is thus well settled that the Constitutional Courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority.' 28. We have examined the case within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments cited to supra. In the given context, the Disciplinary Authority imputed that the petitioners committed misconduct by showing negligence in supervising the construction of a Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) overhead reservoir of 40,000 gallon capacity at Kulai in Ambassa and as a result of their negligence in supervising the work and issuing proper instructions to the contractors and labourer engaged in the work, stone chips of substandard quality were used and the reservoir were found defective and it could not be made operational. Due to such negligence, the State Government suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.15,15,243/-. 29. The learned Single Judge has viewed that the technical expert committee constituted by the State Government to investigate into the causes of defect in the reservoir has categorically opined that such defects occurred due to negligence of the appellant and other engineers entrusted with the supervision of the work. 30. Learned Single Judge discarded the contention of the counsel of the petitioner that evidence recorded during the DP was inadequate to hold the appellant guilty to the charge viewing that in a Departmental Enquiry, guilt of the accused-officer need not be proved beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. The standard of proof required in a Disciplinary Proceeding is preponderance of probability. Learned Single Judge has also held that in a writ petition against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, Court cannot take the role of Disciplinary Authority and on the basis of such observations, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. 31. Learned Single Judge has also held that in a writ petition against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, Court cannot take the role of Disciplinary Authority and on the basis of such observations, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. 31. On a bare perusal of the record, it would emerge that the Disciplinary Authority after examining the whole evidence recorded by the Inquiring Authority agreed with the findings of the Inquiring Authority and came to the conclusion of guilt of the appellant. Apparently Shri R.K. Majumder, chairman of the technical expert committee and Shri Bishu Kumar Debbarma, member of the said technical expert committee were examined by the Inquiring Authority and they were also cross-examined by the appellant. Therefore, his contention that he was deprived of cross-examining those two witnesses is devoid of merit. The contention of the appellant that Bishu Kumar Debbarma was entrusted with the supervision of the construction of the said reservoir is not acceptable for lack of evidence in this regard. The appellant could not also place any material before this Court to come to a conclusion that the principles of natural justice were not followed during the Disciplinary Proceedings against the appellant. 32. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. In terms of the above, the case is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.