ORDER : 1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against judgment/order dated 14.05.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1383 of 2019, whereby and whereunder order of punishment dated 16.02.2017 of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in writ petition, reads as under. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant in Home Department in the year 1984 by the erstwhile State of Bihar and after bifurcation of the States the services of the petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. Later on, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Section Officer and then to the post of Under Secretary. The petitioner while working on the post of Under Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi was assigned with a file pertaining to absorption/regularization of employees of Mines Board, Hazaribagh. The said file was allotted to the petitioner for giving his opinion/noting on recommendation sent by the Deputy Commissioner-cum- Chairman, Mines Board, Hazaribagh, with respect to absorption/regularization of 56 persons in different Urban Local Bodies. 4. The petitioner has given his opinion that out of the said 56 persons, 5 persons have already been superannuated and one person has been declared as absconder and as such cases of only 50 employees may be considered for their absorption/regularization in accordance with law. Thereafter, the said file with the noting/opinion of the petitioner was placed before the Joint Secretary and then before the Departmental Secretary, who directed to mention names of those employees, whose absorption is not possible. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that after about one year from the date of relieving from the Urban Development & Housing Department, the petitioner was served with the memo of charge dated 09.05.2016, alleging therein that the petitioner has added the names of six non-recommended persons by removing the names of six recommended employees. In the said charge memo it has also been mentioned that on being asked, petitioner stated that names of those un-recommended persons were included on the verbal direction of Hon’ble Minister In-charge, however, the said Minister has denied any such order. In the said charge memo it has also been mentioned that on being asked, petitioner stated that names of those un-recommended persons were included on the verbal direction of Hon’ble Minister In-charge, however, the said Minister has denied any such order. The enquiry proceeded and on being noticed, the petitioner filed his detailed reply dated 20.07.2016 along with supporting documents before the said Enquiry Officer. However in the midst of the enquiry, the respondent-authorities have replaced the earlier Enquiry Officer, Sri Ehtashamul Haque with another Enquiry Officer, Sri Binod Chandra Jha vide order dated 08.09.2016. It is the specific case of the petitioner that order dated 08.09.2016 was issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, who is junior to the present petitioner and has no power or jurisdiction to issue such order. The newly appointed Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report as contained in Memo No. 147 dated 28.11.2016, holding therein that the charges against the petitioner are found to be proved. Thereafter, vide memo No. 10810 dated 21.12.2016, second show-cause along with copy of enquiry report was issued to the petitioner, asking therein to submit his reply as to why the major punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, be not inflicted upon him. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P. (S). No. 777 of 2017, with a prayer to quash the second show-cause notice as contained in memo No. 10810 dated 21.12.2016. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondents-authorities have passed the order as contained in Memo No. 1433 dated 16.02.2017 whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of stoppage of three increments. The petitioner filed Interlocutory Application seeking liberty to challenge the said punishment order. However, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of punishment before the appropriate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 1383 of 2019, which was dismissed, hence, the present appeal. 7. It is evident from the facts referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner while posted as Under Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi was assigned with a file pertaining to absorption/regularization of employees of Mines Board, Hazaribagh. 7. It is evident from the facts referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner while posted as Under Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi was assigned with a file pertaining to absorption/regularization of employees of Mines Board, Hazaribagh. It is alleged that the petitioner replaced the name of six recommended persons from the name of un-recommended persons on the instruction of departmental minister but the departmental minister has refused to have gives such instruction. On the aforesaid charge, the writ petitioner was subjected to regular departmental proceeding in which he was found guilty of charges and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of three increments, which the petitioner challenged by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1383 of 2019 which was dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2020 hence, instant intra-court appeal. 8. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that it is a case where on the basis of perverse finding the major punishment of stoppage of three increments has been inflicted upon the petitioner and as such the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law but the aforesaid fact has not been appreciated properly by the learned Single Judge. 9. It has further been submitted that in the enquiry proceeding no witness has been produced by the presenting officer to prove the charge, however, one defence witness has been examined by the petitioner and only on the basis of imputation of charge, the impugned punishment has imposed, but this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by learned Single Judge, hence, the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge requires interference by this Court. 10. Per contra, Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned AC to GP-III learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that it is not a case where the order of punishment has been passed on the basis of perverse finding rather allegation the writ petitioner is of misutilizing his official position since admittedly against the name of six recommended candidate for absorption/ regularization six un-recommended candidate has been replaced by the petitioner. The aforesaid fact finds corroboration from the record and as such it cannot be said that it is a case where the finding recorded by the enquiry officer is said to be perverse. 11. The aforesaid fact finds corroboration from the record and as such it cannot be said that it is a case where the finding recorded by the enquiry officer is said to be perverse. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents-State on the aforesaid premise has submitted that if on the basis of aforesaid nature of allegation order of punishment has refused to be interfered with by learned Single Judge, the same requires no interference by this Court. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge. 13. The undisputed fact in this case is that the writ petitioner while posted as Under Secretary, Urban Development & Housing Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi was proceeded departmentally for commission of misconduct in the matter of accommodating six un-recommended candidates for absorption/regularization who were not recommended, as would appear from memo of charge, which is quoted as under: 1- uxj fodkl ,oa vkokl foHkkx ds v/khu voj lfpo ds in ij inLFkkfir jgus ds nkSjku Jh jke Ádk'k eaMy }kjk [kku i"kZn] gtkjhckx ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ,oa deZpkfj;ksa dk uxj fodkl ,oa vkokl foHkkx ds v/khu uxj fudk;ksa esa lek;kstu laca/kh lays[k Ák:i ds lkFk layXu lwph esa mik;qDr] gtkjhckx }kjk vuq'kaflr 6 dfeZ;ksa dk uke gVkrs gq, mik;qDr] gtkjhckx }kjk xSj vuq'kaflr 6 dfeZ;ksa dk uke tksM+ fn;k x;kA iwNs tkus ij bUgksaus ;g vafdr fd;k fd mi;qZDr N% uke ekuuh; ea=h ds ekSf[kd funsZ'k ij tksM+s x;s gSA ekuuh; ea=h us ,sls fdlh funsZ'k ls badkj fd;k gSA 2- Jh eaMy] voj lfpo }kjk mDr dk;Z ij iw.kZ 'khyfu"Bk ,oa drZO; ds Áfr fu"Bk esa vHkko dks Ánf'kZr fd;k x;k] tks ljdkjh lsod vkpkj fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 3¼1½ ¼ÁFke½ ,oa ¼f}rh;½ ds Áfrdwy vkpj.k gSA 14. The enquiry officer has gone across the relevant record along with the list of candidates. It has been found that six recommended candidates for absorption has been refused to be absorbed and in their place six un-recommended candidates have been recommended to be absorbed. The same has been brought to the notice of the authorities and on being asked, the delinquent-employee has answered that it was done on the oral instruction of departmental minister. 15. Upon which, the enquiry officer made query from the said departmental minister, who refused to give any such instruction. 16. The same has been brought to the notice of the authorities and on being asked, the delinquent-employee has answered that it was done on the oral instruction of departmental minister. 15. Upon which, the enquiry officer made query from the said departmental minister, who refused to give any such instruction. 16. The enquiry officer on the basis of aforesaid fact based upon the documents has found the charge proved, accordingly, the punishment of stoppage of three increments has been imposed, which has been challenged by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1383 of 2019 but the learned Single Judge taking into consideration the power of judicial review to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has refused to interfere with the order of punishment, against which, the instant appeal has been preferred. 17. Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel has argued by making out a ground for interference with the impugned order that enquiry report is perverse and it is a case where principles of natural justice has been violated since only witness in defence has been examined and the department has not examined a single witness. 18. This Court, therefore, is of the view that perversity is the main ground as also violation of principles of natural justice. 19. The law is well settled that the perversity means that if there is no evidence or erroneous consideration of the evidence, as has been interpreted by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arulvelu and Another vs. State Represented by the Public Prosecutor and Another, (2009) 10 SCC 206 , wherein it has been held as under: “24. The expression “perverse” has been dealt with in a number of cases. In Gaya Din vs. Hanuman Prasad, (2001) 1 SCC 501 this Court observed that the expression “perverse” means that the findings of the subordinate authority are not supported by the evidence brought on record or they are against the law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity. 25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union vs. Parry and Co. Ltd. AIR 1966 Cal. 31 the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber and Plastics vs. CCE, 1994 Supp. 25. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union vs. Parry and Co. Ltd. AIR 1966 Cal. 31 the Court observed that “perverse finding” means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber and Plastics vs. CCE, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC 1341 the Court observed that this is not a case where it can be said that the findings of the authorities are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings. 26. In M.S. Narayanagouda vs. Girijamma, AIR 1977 Kant. 58 the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. In Moffett vs. Gough, (1878) 1 LR 331 the Court observed that a “perverse verdict” may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Godfrey vs. Godfrey, 106 NW 814 the Court defined “perverse” as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc. 27. The expression “perverse” has been defined by various dictionaries in the following manner: 1. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 6th Edn. “Perverse - Showing deliberate determination to behave in a way that most people think is wrong, unacceptable or unreasonable.” 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, International Edn. Perverse - Deliberately departing from what is normal and reasonable. 3. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998 Edn. Perverse - Law (of a verdict) against the weight of evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law. 4. The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (Deluxe Encyclopedic Edn.) Perverse - Purposely deviating from accepted or expected behavior or opinion; wicked or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, 4th Edn. Perverse - A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.” 20. This Court is now proceeding to examine the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the aforesaid premise of the interpretation of the perversity, as has been interpreted by Hon’ble Apex Court. 21. This Court is now proceeding to examine the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant on the aforesaid premise of the interpretation of the perversity, as has been interpreted by Hon’ble Apex Court. 21. Admittedly the issue of perversity is the sole ground if evidence has been put forth before the enquiry officer but has not been considered or erroneously considered. As such in that circumstance the order of punishment based upon the perverse finding will be said to be illegal. 22. But the aforesaid principle is to be tested on the basis of the fact of each and every case separately depending upon the facts of the case. 23. Herein, the departmental proceeding is based upon the document, which is the recommendation made by the appellant for absorption of the un-recommended persons in place of recommended persons in the regular establishment. The said document, as would appear from the enquiry report, has well been discussed wherein the name of six persons who have been recommended to be absorbed has been denied their right to absorption and in their place six un-recommended candidates were recommended for absorption. 24. The writ petitioner has given the defence that the same has been done on the instruction of departmental minister but the said minister has refused to give such statement. The refusal or acceptance by the minister is having no consideration/relevant rather it is the conduct of the appellant which is of paramount importance. When duty has been assigned to a person it is to be performed with utmost sincerity without being influenced by anybody even by the head of the State. 25. Herein it is admitted case of the writ petitioner that the appellant on the instruction of the departmental minister has refused the benefit of absorption to six recommended candidate and in place thereof six un-recommended candidates were accommodated. 26. The enquiry officer on the aforesaid premise has found the said charge admitted by the writ petitioner and accordingly, came to the conclusive finding that the charge has conclusively been proved. 27. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the question of perversity as has been taken as a ground for interference with the impugned order of punishment, is having no substance. 28. 27. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the question of perversity as has been taken as a ground for interference with the impugned order of punishment, is having no substance. 28. The second ground is violation of principles of natural justice but it is also admitted case of the writ petitioner that he participated in the enquiry without any protest and the enquiry since is based upon appreciation of documentary evidence, which has been found to be proved by the enquiry officer and further the finding to that effect having been recorded by the enquiry officer and second show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner but it is the writ petitioner who chosen not to respond, then in that circumstance it cannot be said that at any stage of enquiry there was violation of principles of natural justice. 29. The question would be that if opportunity was granted to the appellant to appear but he chosen not to appear, such litigant/party can have a right to raise the issue of violation of principles of natural justice. 30. The law is well settled in this regard that once the opportunity having been granted to have an opportunity to rebut but the same has not been availed it is not available for the party to raise the issue later on. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in N.K. Prasada vs. Govt. of India and Others, (2004) 6 SCC 299 , wherein at paragraph 24 it has been held as under: “24. The principles of natural justice, it is well settled, cannot be put into a straitjacket formula. Its application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is also well settled that if a party after having proper notice chose not to appear, he at a later stage cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing. The question had been considered by a Bench of this Court in Shoan Lal Gupta vs. Asha Devi Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 492 of which two of us (V.N. Khare, C.J. and Sinha, J.) are parties wherein upon noticing a large number of decisions in was held: (SCC p. 506, Para 29) “29. The principles of natural justice, it is trite, cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. The principles of natural justice, it is trite, cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. In a given case the party should not only be required to show that he did not have a proper notice resulting in violation of principles of natural justice but also to show that he was seriously prejudiced thereby.” 31. This Court after having discussed the factual aspect and coming to the order passed by learned Single Judge is of the view that in the circumstance of admission on the part of delinquent based upon the document regarding the denial of the right of six recommended candidate and in place thereof six un-recommended have been recommended to be absorbed and the same having been proved and if on the aforesaid basis the order of punishment has been passed, which according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from error. 32. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge. 33. Accordingly, the instant intra-court appeal fails and is dismissed. 34. Pending, Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.