ORDER : Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J. 1. Since both the above appeals arise out of same order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant Govind Sahu in WA No. 106/2022, Mr. C.K. Kesharwani, learned counsel for appellant Ravindra Singh Goutam in WA No. 170/2022 and Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State. 3. The present intra Court appeals have been filed against the order dated 13-10-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.267/2012 (Ravindra Singh Goutam and anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. 4. Facts of the case as projected in the writ petition are that the appellants Ravindra Singh and Govind Kumar Sahu were appointed in police department as Constable in the years 2009. It is alleged that on 11. 04.2010 at 10.00 P.M., the appellants booked two rooms for stay with two girls in the Mayank Hotel, Raipur and on information received by the Station House Officer, Police Station Gol Bazar that two persons are staying at Mayank Hotel by presenting themselves as Crime Branch Officers with two girls in suspicious condition, therefore a raid was conducted in the Mayank Hotel and appellants were found with said two girls, therefore on the basis of their suspicious stay in the hotel with the two girls, the appellants were arrested under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. and the two girls were arrested under Section 109 of the Cr.P.C. thereafter they were granted bail. Preliminary inquiry was conducted report of which is Annexure P-3 dated 7-5-2010 and the appellants were suspended. Thereafter, the departmental inquiry was initiated against the appellants and charge sheet was served upon the appellants, which they replied denying the charge leveled against them. After taking evidence and examining witnesses, the Inquiry Officer vide inquiry report Annexure P-5, held the charge leveled against the appellants to be proved. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4/Disciplinary Authority provided opportunity of hearing to the appellants and on the basis of the inquiry report, dismissed the appellants from service vide order dated 13-1-2011 (Annexure P/6). Against said dismissal from service, the appeal and mercy appeal preferred by them were also dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4/Disciplinary Authority provided opportunity of hearing to the appellants and on the basis of the inquiry report, dismissed the appellants from service vide order dated 13-1-2011 (Annexure P/6). Against said dismissal from service, the appeal and mercy appeal preferred by them were also dismissed. Subsequently, they preferred writ petition No. 267/2012, which was also dismissed by learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13-10-2020, which is under challenge in these appeals. 5. Mr. C.K. Kesharwani and Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for their respective appellants submit that the allegation leveled against the appellants are baseless. It is submitted that on 11-4-2010 two girls came from Korba to Raipur. One of the girl tried to contact her sister, who resides at Raipur, through mobile phone, but she could not contact her, then since there was no other relative of them at Raipur, one of the girl contacted appellant Ravindra Singh, who was her Munh Bola Bhai for their stay at Raipur, therefore, both the appellants just to help the girls, booked two rooms at Hotel Mayank. On information received by police, when the police raided their room, it was open and there was no suspicious activities in the room. It is further submitted that the Manager of the Hotel Bajranglal Sharma has stated in his statement that the appellants booked the rooms by showing their identity card and driving licence. He has also stated that Waiter Vishal Singh and Jivan Tandi did not complain about character of appellants. It is further submitted that during departmental inquiry, statement of mother and sister of one of the girl were also recorded, but they have not stated anything against appellants, on the contrary, they have said that they are well known to appellants. But the Inquiry Officer ignoring all these material evidence, has held the appellants guilty of misconduct, and on the basis of said inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority has dismissed the appellants from service, which has also been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that, even if, for the sake of arguments, charge against the appellants of the alleged misconduct is found proved, then also, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellants by the respondent/authorities is highly disproportionate looking to the charge leveled against them. Therefore, the same could have been suitably reduced. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that, even if, for the sake of arguments, charge against the appellants of the alleged misconduct is found proved, then also, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellants by the respondent/authorities is highly disproportionate looking to the charge leveled against them. Therefore, the same could have been suitably reduced. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge ignoring all the facts and evidence available on record, has dismissed the writ petition, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeals may be allowed. They placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India and ors. Vs. Constable Sunil Kumar [ (2023) 3 SCC 622 ], State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. Umesh [ (2022)6 SCC 563 ], Union of India and ors. Vs. Managobinda Samantaray [2022 SCC Online SC 284], United Bank of India Vs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee [(2022) 13 SCC 329] Praveen Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. [ (2020) 9 SCC 471 ], Kukkikatte Krishnamoorty Vs. Union of India and anr. [ (2019) 16 SCC 346 ]. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that the departmental inquiry against the appellants has been conducted strictly in accordance with law. The appellants have been provided full opportunity of hearing prior to passing the order of punishment. It is submitted that in catena of judgments, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the departmental inquiry proceeding, the scope of interference by a court is very limited. A court cannot interfere with departmental inquiry proceedings unless, there has been a violation of principle of natural justice, the proceedings have been held in violation of regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, the decision is vitiated by consideration extraneous to the evidence and merit of the case and if the conclusion made by the authority is ex facie arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion. It is further submitted that it is not open to the Court to re-appreciate and re-apprise the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer. The appellants have failed to make out any ground for interference in the matter. There are concurrent findings of authorities, right from disciplinary authority. It is further submitted that it is not open to the Court to re-appreciate and re-apprise the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer. The appellants have failed to make out any ground for interference in the matter. There are concurrent findings of authorities, right from disciplinary authority. The learned Single Judge considering entire aspect of the matter, has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants, which does not call for any interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. It is well settled that courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence. However, if principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere. 10. While considering the scope of judicial review in a departmental proceedings, a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 ] has made following observations :- “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. 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. 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 coextensive 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 ] this Court held at p. 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.” [Emphasis laid] 11. Aforesaid principles have further been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court by more clarifying in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya [(2011) 4 SCC 5847], and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran [ (2015) 2 SCC 610 ], which have also been referred by learned Single Judge in its impugned order. 12. In the case of Praveen Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors. 12. In the case of Praveen Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors. [ (2020) 9 SCC 471 ], Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering scope of judicial review in cases of departmental inquiry / service matter has observed in para 25 as under :- “25. The learned counsel for the appellant spent considerable time taking us through the various evidence on record with the intention of highlighting lacunae and contradictions. We feel that such an exercise was in vain, as the threshold of interference in the present proceedings is quite high. The power of judicial review discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or 32, or when sitting in appeal under Article 136, is distinct from the appellate power exercised by a departmental appellate authority. It would be gainsaid that judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process, and not the merits of the decision itself. Judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion. It ought to be used to correct manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome. [State of A.P. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, (2006) 2 SCC 373 , para 11 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 316]” 13. In the case of State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. Umesh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering various judgments concluded in para 22 as under :- “22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The court does not reappreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. [State of Karnataka v. N. Gangaraj, (2020) 3 SCC 423 : (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 547; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80; R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab, (1999) 8 SCC 90 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1424 and CISF v. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 310]” 14. In view of above case laws, it is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry 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. Further the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. It is not open to the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India to re-appreciate and re-apprise the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer at examination. A court can interfere with departmental inquiry proceedings where, there has been a violation of principle of natural justice, the proceedings have been held in violation of regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, the decision is vitiated by consideration extraneous to the evidence and merit of the case and if the conclusion made by the authority is ex facie arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion. 15. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, the grounds raised by the appellants in these appeals, to assail the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority, affirmed by the learned Single Judge, are that the evidence available in the case, has not been properly appreciated by them. 15. Reverting to the facts of the instant case, the grounds raised by the appellants in these appeals, to assail the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also the Appellate Authority, affirmed by the learned Single Judge, are that the evidence available in the case, has not been properly appreciated by them. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above cited cases, this Court is not inclined to reappreciate the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer, as it is not open to the High Court to reappreciate the evidence. From perusal of the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as the return filed by the respondents/authorities, it is found that in the departmental inquiry held by the Inquiry Officer against the appellants, there is no violation of principle of natural justice, the proceedings have not been held in violation of regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, the decision is not vitiated by consideration extraneous to the evidence and merit of the case. The appellants have participated in the departmental inquiry and due opportunity has been afforded to them to led evidence and defend themselves. Learned Single Judge has considered all the aspects available on record, and came to the conclusion referring it in para 25 of impugned judgment as under :- “25. Given the said admitted factual position from the statements that have come on record in the course of recording of the statements of the witnesses, the action on the part of the Disciplinary Authority in subjecting the petitioners to disciplinary action cannot be firstly found fault with. Police personals under the given circumstances, who were staying in the Police Line at Raipur found under suspicious circumstances at odd hours at a hotel room in the city of Raipur itself establishes a conduct which is unbecoming of a government servant under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Conduct Rules.” 16. On due consideration of facts, evidence available on record and law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in afore-cited cases, we do not find any reason to disturb the said finding given by learned Single Judge, and therefore, we uphold said finding. 17. Now coming to the punishment part of the case, the disciplinary authority has imposed on the appellants, the major penalty of dismissal from service. 18. 17. Now coming to the punishment part of the case, the disciplinary authority has imposed on the appellants, the major penalty of dismissal from service. 18. In this regard, it is also settled preposition of law that in disciplinary proceeding, High Court ought not to interfere in punishment imposed upon delinquent employee, as disciplinary / appellate authority have exclusive power to impose penalty because they are duty bound to maintain discipline, unless penalty is found to be shockingly disproportionate, which strike conscience of the Court. 19. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in para 18 as under :- “18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 20. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Subrata Nath [2022 SCC Online 1617] has observed in para 21 that : “21. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran [ (2015) 2 SCC 610 ]. If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor.” (emphasis supplied) 21. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and ors. Vs. Constable Sunil Kumar (supra) has observed in para 11 and 13 as under :- “11……… In Surinder Kumar [CRPF v. Surinder Kumar, [ (2011) 10 SCC 244 ] while considering the power of judicial review of the High Court in interfering with the punishment of dismissal, it is observed and held by this Court after considering the earlier decision in [Union of India v. R.K. Sharma, (2001) 9 SCC 592 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 767] that in exercise of powers of judicial review interfering with the punishment of dismissal on the ground that it was disproportionate, the punishment should not be merely disproportionate but should be strikingly disproportionate. As observed and held that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 or under Article 32 of the Constitution.. 13.…...As per the settled position of law, even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved, the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. ….” 22. 13.…...As per the settled position of law, even in a case where the punishment is found to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed and proved, the matter is to be remitted to the disciplinary authority for imposing appropriate punishment/penalty which as such is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority. ….” 22. In view of above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that it shocks the conscience of the Court then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re-consider the penalty imposed. 23. In the instant case, charge against the appellants are as under :- ^^fnukad 11-4-2010 dh jkf= esa lafnX/k ;qofr;ksa ds lkFk gksVy e;ad esa mifLFkr jgdj v'kksHkuh; d`R; Ánf'kZr dj N-x- flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e] 1965 ds mi&fue 3 ¼1½ rhu ds foijhr d`R; djukA** 24. On the basis of aforesaid charge, it has been found proved that, on 11-4-2010 at10.00 pm, appellants booked two rooms for stay with two girls in Mayank Hotel, Raipur, and on the information received, when police conducted raid, the appellants and the two girls were found in a room. Then after disciplinary inquiry, the appellants were held guilty for aforesaid misconduct, and by order dated 13-1-2011 (Annexure P-6), they were dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. The appellants were appointed on the said post in the year 2009 and instant incident is of 2010 i.e. only after about one year of their appointment, at that time, they were young boys of 28/25 years, proven charge against them are not with regard to any heinous offence or corruption or misconduct/misbehaviour or insubordination with the superiors, even in the alleged hotel room, they were not found in objectionable condition. Considering aforesaid facts situation of the case, we find that punishment of dismissal from service is too much on higher side against the proven charge against them, which shocks the conscience of this Court, because looking to the nature of allegation, we find that aforesaid punishment is disproportionate against the proven charge, hence the Disciplinary Authority ought to have taken some lenient view while imposing penalty on them, as such, we are of the considered opinion that quantum of punishment imposed against the appellants needs to be reconsidered by the Disciplinary Authority. 25. 25. In view of above discussion, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order affirming the finding of Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority holding guilty appellants of charge leveled against them, but we set aside the punishment part of the appellants imposed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. dismissal from service, upheld by the Appellate Authority and learned Single Judge, and remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to him to reconsider the quantum of punishment and impose the punishment, other than the punishment provided under sub-rule (vii), (viii) and (ix) of Rule 10 of the C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. 26. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs.