JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondents/Respondents. I.A. No. 4368 0f 2022 2. Before entering into the merit of the issue, it requires to deal with the issue of limitation, since, this appeal has been filed after the period of limitation. 3. This interlocutory Application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 20 days in filing the instant Appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submission made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation and having no objection on the part of the Respondent State, the delay of 20 days in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned. 6. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 4368 of 2022 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 202 of 2022 7. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondents/Respondents. The instant appeal is being heard on merit. 8. The appeal is under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order dated 23.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1817 of 2016 whereby and whereunder while dismissing the writ petition the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order of punishment of dismissal from service. 9. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated herein, read under as: 10. The Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order of dismissal, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. The material fact of the writ was that the petitioner joined the services of Central Industrial Security Force as a Constable on 19.05.2001 and was lastly posted as such in CISF Unit, PTPS, Patratu at Ramgarh. The petitioner was served Charge of Memo vide Letter No. 1442, dated 08.06.2013, by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, PTPS, Patratu. The material fact of the writ was that the petitioner joined the services of Central Industrial Security Force as a Constable on 19.05.2001 and was lastly posted as such in CISF Unit, PTPS, Patratu at Ramgarh. The petitioner was served Charge of Memo vide Letter No. 1442, dated 08.06.2013, by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, PTPS, Patratu. The Enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and on the basis of a letter by the Circle Officer, Kahalgaon, which declares that petitioner belongs to Gongota Caste and despite several explanations submitted by him, came to the findings that petitioner, had obtained employment on the basis of false document. The Disciplinary authority, relying upon the finding of the enquiry officer passed final order of dismissal from service. Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal requesting therein for proper verification from the Scheduled Tribes Commission constituted under Articles 338 and 339 of the Constitution of India but the Appellate Authority, upheld the punishment vide order dated 30.12.2013. Thereafter petitioner preferred revision which was also not considered and rejected vide order dated 08.05.2014. Being aggrieved, petitioner knocked door of this Court. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside on the ground that petitioner admittedly belongs to the Scheduled Tribes Category and it was the respondents – State who had issued Caste Certificate mentioning the caste to which petitioner does not belong. Learned counsel further argued that it is specific case of the petitioner that while issuing Caste Certificate, the concerned authorities mentioned wrong Caste in the Caste Certificate issued in his favour. Learned counsel argued that from 22.03.2001 to 27.11.2013, the Circle Officer and the SDO, Kahalgaon issued certification in respect of petitioner as belonging to “Gond” and “Kharwar” caste and both the Caste belong to Scheduled Tribe category as declared by the Scheduled Tribes Record of Bihar Government vide Certificate No. 9810, dated 27.11.2013. Learned counsel argued that petitioner never produced any false certificate for obtaining job rather he had produced the documents supplied by the competent authority on the basis of Khatiyan which declares petitioner to be Kharwar, a Scheduled Tribes. Petitioner never tried to mislead the department. Learned counsel argued that petitioner never produced any false certificate for obtaining job rather he had produced the documents supplied by the competent authority on the basis of Khatiyan which declares petitioner to be Kharwar, a Scheduled Tribes. Petitioner never tried to mislead the department. Learned counsel further argues that even if caste was wrongly mentioned but the fact remains that he belongs to the Scheduled Tribes category. There was no occasion to slap him with harsh punishment. 12. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove that the writ petitioner joined the services of Central Industrial Security Force in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the competent authority as Constable on 19.05.2001 and while he was posted in CISF Unit, PTPS, Patratu at Ramgarh, he was served with Memorandum of Charge vide Letter No. 1442, dated 08.06.2013, by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, PTPS, Patratu, on allegation of Commission of fraud by getting the appointment on the basis of the false caste certificate. 13. The Enquiry Officer was appointed with a direction upon the writ petitioner to participate in the enquiry. The writ petitioner had participated in the enquiry and defended his case. The enquiry officer has found the charge proved and has forwarded the finding so recorded by the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority on acceptance of the findings so recorded by the enquiry officer has passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service, vide order dated 06.11.2013 as appended Annexure-4 to Paper Book. 14. The writ petitioner thereafter has preferred appeal which was also dismissed by affirming the decision taken by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 30.12.2013 as appended as Annexure-5 to the Paper Book as also the revisional authority had refused to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the original authority which was affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 08.05.2014. 15. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the orders passed by the Administrative Authorities has challenged the said orders by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1817 of 2016. 15. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the orders passed by the Administrative Authorities has challenged the said orders by filing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1817 of 2016. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and considering the merit of the issue that the writ petitioner has got the appointment on the basis of the caste certificate to which he does not belong and accordingly, dismissed, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 16. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted by assailing the order that the learned Single Judge has not considered the verified fact that the discretion of caste of the writ petitioner which was produced before the appointing authority at the time of getting appointment was based upon the reference so made in the Cadastral survey. It has been contended that the caste certificate was issued by taking into consideration the aforesaid Cadastral survey and the aforesaid facts has specifically been agitated before the Enquiry Officer but the same has not been considered and as such the learned Single Judge since has not considered the aforesaid fact, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 17. While Mr Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has defended the order passed by the learned Single Judge by making submission that the writ petitioner has been provided with all adequate and sufficient opportunities before the Enquiry Officer, rather, he has also been provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and hence there is no complaint what so ever on behalf of the writ petitioner, of any violation of the principle of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer on consideration of the documents as also the defence of the writ petitioner has found the charge proved, based upon which the disciplinary authority on its acceptance has passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service vide the final order dated 06.11.2013 as appended as Annexure-4 which has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.12.2013 as appended as Annexure-5 of the Paper Book 18. It has been contended that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the finding so recorded by the Enquiry Officer duly been accepted by the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion by taking into consideration the position of law that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 is very limited so far as the decision of the administrative authority in the matter of disciplinary proceeding is concerned, therefore, the order impugned may not be interfered with. 19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 20. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the writ petitioner was appointed as Constable way back on 19.05.2001 under the Scheduled Tribe category, since, the writ petitioner has claimed to be the member of a Gond Caste, which falls under the Schedule Tribe category. The writ petitioner based upon the aforesaid caste certificate issued by the Circle Officer dated 22.03.2001 had joined the duty and started rendering his services but after a lapse of about 12 years, based upon a complaint, about the misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioner in getting the appointment under the scheduled Tribe category showing himself to be a member of Gond caste, a enquiry was contemplated and in pursuance thereto the memorandum of charge was issued on 08.06.2013 alleging therein that the appointment was got on the basis of the forged caste certificate and in contemplation of the departmental proceeding he was also put under suspension and as such the charge has been levelled of commission of gross misconduct and indiscipline. The second charge has been levelled against the writ petitioner that even though he belongs to the Gongota caste but only, for the purpose of getting appointment he has presented his caste to be of Gond caste and on his representation he was able to get the caste certificate under the Gond caste which comes under scheduled Tribe category. The second charge has been levelled against the writ petitioner that even though he belongs to the Gongota caste but only, for the purpose of getting appointment he has presented his caste to be of Gond caste and on his representation he was able to get the caste certificate under the Gond caste which comes under scheduled Tribe category. The enquiry proceeded and it appears from the enquiry report appended as Annexure-3 which is at page-24 that the documents have been appreciated by the enquiry officer, witnesses have been examined as also the core of the issue i.e. the caste certificate in order to assess as to whether the writ petitioner belongs to scheduled tribe category or scheduled caste, the report has also been sought for, in pursuance thereto, the revenue Karamcharai has submitted its report, reporting therein that the caste certificate which was issued in favour of the writ petitioner basis upon which the writ petitioner was appointed as Constable as per the reference of the issuance of the caste certificate as under Sl. No. 307 dated 22.03.2001 has already been cancelled by the order passed in this regard by the Circle Officer, Kahalgaon as contained in letter No. 696 dated 18.08.2012. The Enquiry Officer based upon the deposition of the sub–divisional officer, Kahalgaon, who has been examined as P.W.-1, the Circle Officer, Kahalgaon, who has been examined as P.W.-2, the Revenue Karamcharai, Kahalgaon, who has been examined as P.W.-3 as also the relevant documents lying with the appointing authority and the Executive Magistrate has found the charge proved against the writ petitioner. The aforesaid enquiry report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority had accepted the findings so recorded by the enquiry officer and by following the proceeding has passed the order of punishment on 06.11.2013. The said order is appended as Annexure-4 and on its perusal it is evident that the disciplinary authority has considered the entire finding as recorded by the enquiry officer alongwith the discussions and the due consideration has also been made of the witnesses, the authorities, who have been examined as P.W.-1, the sub–divisional officer, Kahalgaon, P.W.-2, the Circle Officer, Kahalgaon, and P.W.-3, the Revenue Karamcharai, Kahalgaon. The disciplinary authority has accepted the findings recorded, and come to the conclusion about the fact that the writ petitioner has committed gross misconduct and therefore dismissed the writ petitioner from service. 21. The disciplinary authority has accepted the findings recorded, and come to the conclusion about the fact that the writ petitioner has committed gross misconduct and therefore dismissed the writ petitioner from service. 21. The aforesaid order dated 06.11.2013 was challenged in appeal but the appellate authority has also refused to interfere with the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 06.11.2013 by rejecting the appeal as would appear from Annexure-5. The writ petitioner has also preferred revision against the order passed by the appellate authority but the same has also been dismissed. 22. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority has invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in assailing all the orders but, the learned Single Judge has also refused to interfere with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority, against which the present appeal. 23. The arguments which has been advanced on behalf of the appellant that the caste certificate was issued showing the writ petitioner to be the member of the Gond caste which comes under the Scheduled Tribe category is based upon the Cadastral survey. According to the writ petitioner the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered but we on consideration of the finding recorded by the enquiry officer has found that the enquiry officer has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and accordingly a report was also called upon from the concerned circle officer and further, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Circle Officer, and the Revenue Karamchari has also been examined by providing an opportunity to the writ petitioner to cross-examine them. The Circle Officer has corroborated the fact about issuance of the caste certificate treating the writ petitioner to be a member of Scheduled Tribe, since the caste certificate had been with the reference of Gond caste. The Circle Officer has corroborated the fact about issuance of the caste certificate treating the writ petitioner to be a member of Scheduled Tribe, since the caste certificate had been with the reference of Gond caste. However the said caste certificate has been cancelled by the Circle Officer on 18.08.2012 as contained in letter No. 696, as has been referred by the Enquiry Officer as would appear from page 31 thereof, for reference the said paragraph of the enquiry report is being referred herein: ^^5- Jh lR;ukjk;.k jk;] dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV] vuqeaMy dgyxkao LkhMCY;w&01 us vius c;ku esa crk;k fd eSa dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV ds :i esa rSukr gw¡ rFkk vuqeaMy dk;kZy; dgyxkao esa rSukr gw¡A Jh equh yky eaMy firk LoxhZ; iqydh yky eaMy xzke ,oa iksLV cq)pd] Fkkuk&dgyxkao] ftyk&Hkkxyiqj dk tkfr izek.k i= vuqeaMy dk;kZy; dgyxkao ls tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA bl laca/k esa miyC/k fjdksMZ ds vk/kkj ij vkosnu equh yky eaMy us Øekad&307 fnukad 22-03-2001 dks xksaM leqnk; dk lnL; crykrs gq, vuwlwfpr tutkfr dk izek.k i= izkIr fd;k FkkA ftl laca/k esa gydk deZpkjh Jh vk'kqrks"k >k }kjk LFkkuh; yksxksa ls iwNrkN djus ds i'pkr~ Jh equh yky eaMy dks xaxksrk tkfr dk ik;k x;kA Jh equh yky eaMy tks fd orZeku esa dsvkSlqcy esa vkj{kd ds in ij rSukr gS dk Øekad&307 fnukad&22-03-2001 dks fuxZr tkfr izek.k i= vapy dk;kZy; }kjk jn~n fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj bl laca/k esa vapykf/kdkjh dgyaxkao i=kad&696 fnukad 18-08-12 dks eSaus izfrgLrk{kj Hkh fd;k gSA vkjksih cy lnL; vkj{kd equh yky eaMy dk lhMCY;w&01 ls izfrijh{k.k djus dk volj iznku fd;k x;k ijUrq vkjksih cy lnL; us iz'u iwNus ls euk fd;kA 24. This Court has put a pin pointed question upon the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as to whether the order dated 18.08.2012, by which, the caste certificate was cancelled which was issued on 22.03.2001 showing the writ petitioner to be of Gond caste, which comes under Schedule Tribe category, has been challenged before any Court of Law or any Forum. 25. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid cancellation of the caste certificate has not been challenged. 25. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid cancellation of the caste certificate has not been challenged. This Court, therefore, on acceptance of the aforesaid fact about not questioning the cancellation of the caste certificate which was issued on 22.03.2001 on the basis of wrong declaration/misrepresentation committed by the writ petitioner before the competent issuing authority, in furtherity has cancelled the same and the same has not been challenged meaning thereby the decision of cancellation of the caste certificate has been accepted by the writ petitioner. The Enquiry Officer has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter, which was the basis of coming to the conclusion by the Enquiry Officer, by giving a finding that charge has been found to be proved. 26. It further appears that the writ petitioner has been given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses i.e. C.W.-1, the Executive Magistrate, Kahalgaon, but he has refused to examine on the issue of the cancellation of the caste certificate. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, has given a finding that the writ petitioner even though does not belong to the Gond caste, which falls under the Scheduled Tribe category, but based upon the said caste certificate he has got the appointment and therefore the charge as has been levelled against the writ petitioner of gross-misconduct in getting appointment based upon the false caste certificate has been found to be true. 27. It further appears from the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the writ petitioner himself has accepted that he does not belong to "Gond" caste; rather, he belongs to the "Kharwar" caste. Further it appears from the materials available on record, more particularly the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and reference of the same made in the order passed by the learned Single Judge that he claims to be of "Gangota" caste, therefore, the writ petitioner is himself is not sure that to which caste he belongs. The order passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as also by the Revisional Authority. The order passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority as also by the Revisional Authority. The question which has been raised for non-consideration of the Cadastral Survey, according to our considered view, cannot be said to have any substance, since, there is a specific finding to that effect as has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer and by taking into consideration the aforesaid record coupled with the decision of the Circle Officer by which the caste certificate dated 22.03.2001 itself has been cancelled, therefore, there is no occasion for the writ petitioner to claim the service, when the caste certificate, basis upon which the appointment was granted, itself is not in existence. The writ petitioner has also not challenged the cancellation of the said caste certificate. The law has been settled that so far the decision taken by the administrative authority in the matter of disciplinary proceeding, the scope of judicial review is very limited, the same can only be exercised, if there is any perversity or error apparent on the face of the record. 28. Before proceeding further it requires to refer the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of decision taken by the disciplinary authority. 29. It is settled position of law that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has got limited scope in showing interference in the decision taken by the authorities. 30. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran as reported in AIR 2015 SC 545 wherein at paragraph 13, the following guidelines has been laid down for showing interference in the decision taken by the disciplinary authority and not to interfere with the decision, which reads hereunder as: “13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. 1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The finding on Charge No. 1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 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.” 31. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Management of State Bank of India vs. Smita Sharad Deshmukh and Anr. reported in (2017) 4 SCC 75 , has laid down therein that it is equally settled position of law that the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can certainly interfere with the quantum of punishment, if it is found disproportionate to the gravity of offence. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. vs. Abrar Ali reported in AIR (2017) SC 200, has laid down the guidelines at paragraph 8 showing interference by the High Court in the matter of punishment imposed on conclusion of the departmental proceeding, which is quoted herein below: “8. Contrary to findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the High Court accepted the version of the Respondent that he fell ill and was being treated by a local doctor without assigning any reasons. It was held by the Disciplinary Authority that the Unit had better medical facilities which could have been availed by the Respondent if he was really suffering from illness. It was further held that the delinquent did not produce any evidence of treatment by a local doctor. The High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts which tantamounts to re-appreciation of evidence. It is settled law that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 : ( AIR 2011 SC 1931 , Para 6), this Court held as follows: "7. 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. 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. The 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. In Union of India and Ors. The 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. In Union of India and Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610 this Court held as follows: "12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the inquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the inquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the inquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; 13.(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 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 inquiry, 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." 33. (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." 33. This Court on the basis of the aforesaid guidelines and coming back to the case is of the view that none of the guideline is available so as to interfere with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and its acceptance by the disciplinary authority. So as the three authorities have given the concurrent finding, and as such on this ground also there is no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the administrative authority, since, the High Court, in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to reappraise the evidence, rather, it is only to see the perversity on the face of law. 34. This Court after having discussed the legal scope and factual aspects and coming to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the learned Single Judge has considered the entire facts on merit and as such we are of the view based upon the legal position as has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein the scope of judicial review, is of the view that the order impugned require no interference. 35. Accordingly, this L.P.A is dismissed being devoid of merit.