Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1839 (GUJ)

D. N. RAJA v. PRESIDENT-INDUSTRIAL COURT

2024-10-01

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Himanshi R. Balodi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.M. Antani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 2.1. Briefly stated that, the petitioner while, he was working as Clerk at the Labour Court, Amreli, was served with the charge-sheet, with the allegations such as, misbehaving with the Judge in the Court, not maintaining the decorum of the Court, demanding illegal gratification from the parties for giving short adjournment, early hearing of the matter, publication of award, misbehaving with colleagues, resulting in unbecoming of a government servant, contravening rules of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, the said chargesheet is duly produced at Annexure-A. 2.2. The petitioner made representation to the respondent to supply with the copies of the statement, recorded during the preliminary investigation and the complaint filed by Shri Jayendra Bhikhubhai Rajyaguru against the petitioner, copy of the said letter dated 19.02.2001 is duly produced at Annexure-B. The said letter was replied to, by letter dated 01.03.2001 informing the petitioner that except complaint received from Shri Rajyaguru, no other complaint was made against the petitioner and the time for filing of reply to the charge-sheet came to be extended. 2.3. The petitioner replied to the charge-sheet, denying the allegations levelled against the petitioner, on the basis of the documents supplied to the petitioner, with the charge-sheet and requested to supply the petitioner with the copies of the documents, which may supplied later, if not supplied. Upon recording of the statements of the witnesses, the Presiding Officer submitted brief dated 29.01.2002 and the petitioner also submitted the defense brief in response thereof, by communication / letter dated 07.02.2002. 2.4. On 03.05.2002, show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner as to show cause, against the imposition of major penalty provided under Rule-6 sub-rule 4 to 8 of the Gujarat State Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The report of the inquiry officer dated 30.03.2002 also came to be served to the petitioner alongwith the said notice dated 03.05.2002. The inquiry officer held charges no. 3 to 7 as not proved; charges no. 1 and 2 were held to be proved, whereas, charge no. 8 was held to be proved partly. The petitioner filed written statement on 07.06.2002 in response to the show cause notice dated 03.05.2002. 2.5. The inquiry officer held charges no. 3 to 7 as not proved; charges no. 1 and 2 were held to be proved, whereas, charge no. 8 was held to be proved partly. The petitioner filed written statement on 07.06.2002 in response to the show cause notice dated 03.05.2002. 2.5. The disciplinary authority concurring with the findings of the inquiry officer by its order dated 03.07.2002, held the petitioner guilty and imposed the punishment of removal from service, w.e.f. the date of service of the order, copy of the said order is duly produced at Annexure-G. 2.6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order passed in the departmental inquiry initiated pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 06.02.2001, the petitioner preferred Appeal being Appeal No. 212 of 2002 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, copy of the said memo of appeal is duly produced at Annexure-H. Upon issuance of notice by the Tribunal, the respondent filed reply dated 21.05.2003 to the appeal filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner herein, by converting the punishment of removal from service to imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement, by the impugned order dated 20.10.2004, which is duly produced at Annexure-J. 2.7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the orders passed by the departmental authorities in relation to the charge-sheet dated 06.02.2001 and the order dated 20.10.2004 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner herein has approached this Court under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, calling for the record and proceedings of Appeal No. 212/2002 and after perusing the same be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 20-10-2004 passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar in Appeal No. 212/2002. (B) Be pleased to quash and set aside the inquiry proceedings and the orders passed by the respondent authorities in relation to charge sheet dated 6-2-2001 based on inquiry officer’s report. (C) Be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and grant all consequential benefits as if the impugned order of removal from service has never been passed. (D) Be pleased to allow this petition with costs and be pleased to quatify the costs. (C) Be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and grant all consequential benefits as if the impugned order of removal from service has never been passed. (D) Be pleased to allow this petition with costs and be pleased to quatify the costs. (E) Be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper by the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3.1. Ms. Himanshi Balodi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners mainly submitted that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated, in view of non-adherence to the Rule-9(17) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which provides that the inquiry authority may, after the government servant closes his case, and shall if the government servant has not examined himself, generally, question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, for the purpose of enabling the government servant, to explain any circumstances, appearing in the evidence again him. It is submitted that the petitioner has not examined himself, at the inquiry and the inquiry authority has also not questioned him, on the circumstances appearing against as per the requirement of Rule-9 (17) of the Rules. 3.2. Ms. Balodi, learned advocate placed reliance on the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Moni Shankar vs. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 819. 3.3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that, in view of the aforesaid, the departmental proceedings itself are required to be interfered with and requested that the prayers as prayed for by the petitioners herein in the present petition may kindly be allowed. 4.1. Mr. K.M. Antani, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that, no interference is called for, in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, whereby, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the facts of the case, has granted an opportunity of hearing to the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and partly allowed the petitioner's appeal, by reducing the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement, by the impugned order dated 20.10.2004, which requires no interference. 4.2. 4.2. It is submitted that, in absence of any jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal, in passing the impugned order, this Court under Articles-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, may not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, which has considered the facts of the case and passed the impugned order. 4.3. Answering the contentions raised by Ms. Balodi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that Rule-9(17) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules is not followed by the inquiry officer, it is submitted by Mr. Antani, the learned advocate submitted that the aforesaid contention has been raised by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner for the very first time before this Court, the same has not been raised before the Tribunal. Further, Mr. Antani, learned advocate submitted that the violation of the aforesaid Rules, has not been established even before this Court. 4.4. Reliance is also placed on the appeal, filed by the petitioner herein, which is duly produced at Annexure-I, Page-133. Placing reliance on the contentions raised in the said appeal, the aforesaid contention was never taken by the petitioner herein before the Tribunal, when the appeal was preferred, in absence thereof, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to deal with such contention, which is raised by the petitioner herein in the present petition for the first time. 4.5. It is submitted that, in view of the aforesaid, the order passed by the Tribunal, is just and proper, having taken into consideration the contentions taken in the Appeal being Appeal no. 212 of 2002, which is duly produced at Page-133 and in view thereof, no interference is called for and this Court may not exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Answering the contentions raised by Ms. Balodi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that no reply is filed by the respondent herein, it is submitted by Mr. Antani, learned advocate that the present petition challenges the order passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal and the respondent herein would not be in a position to say anything beyond the order that is passed by the Tribunal and the order has required to be read as it is, which requires no reply to be filed. 6.1. Antani, learned advocate that the present petition challenges the order passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal and the respondent herein would not be in a position to say anything beyond the order that is passed by the Tribunal and the order has required to be read as it is, which requires no reply to be filed. 6.1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the preliminary inquiry having been held, upon a complaint, filed by Mr. Jayendra Bhikhbhai Rajyaguru against the present petitioner, the charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner herein with respect to the charges, such as misbehaving with the Judge in the Court, not maintaining the decorum of the Court, demanding illegal gratification from the parties for giving short adjournment, early hearing of the matter, publication of award, misbehaving with colleagues, resulting in unbecoming of a government servant, contravening rules of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, the said charge-sheet dated 06.02.2001 is duly produced at Annexure-A, Pg.20, wherein, total 12 charges have been framed. 6.2. The petitioner herein replied to the said charges denying the same. The documents came to be supplied to the petitioner, alongwith the charge-sheet, pursuant to the recording of the statement of the witnesses, the Presiding Officer submitted his brief dated 29.01.2002 and the petitioner also submitted his brief defence in response thereto by communication dated 07.02.2002. 6.3. A show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 03.05.2002, calling upon the petitioner to show cause against the imposition of major penalty enumerated in Rule-6, sub-rule 4 to 8 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The report of the inquiry officer dated 30.03.2002 also came to be served upon the petitioner. The inquiry officer held charges no. 3 to 7 as not proved; charges no. 1 and 2 held to be proved, whereas, charge no. 8 held as proved partly. 6.4. The petitioner filed written statement on 07.06.2002 in response to the show cause notice dated 03.05.2002. Upon considering the report of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority by order dated 03.07.2002, held the petitioner guilty of the charges and ordered removal of services of the petitioner, which is duly produced at Annexure-G. 6.5. 8 held as proved partly. 6.4. The petitioner filed written statement on 07.06.2002 in response to the show cause notice dated 03.05.2002. Upon considering the report of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority by order dated 03.07.2002, held the petitioner guilty of the charges and ordered removal of services of the petitioner, which is duly produced at Annexure-G. 6.5. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner herein preferred Appeal being Appeal No. 212 of 2002 before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar, which is duly produced at Page-133, Annexure-I. 6.6. Upon perusal of the same, petitioner herein has raised the following grounds before the Tribunal, which reads thus: “1. I, the Appellant, had been serving as Clerk of the Court in the Labour Court, Ahmedabad falling under the jurisdiction of the Opponent-President, but in connection with one departmental Inquiry, I have been dismissed from the service vide order dated 03-07-2002 of the President. Annexure- A. xxx xxx xxx Hence, on being aggrieved with this order, this appeal application is preferred before the Hon’ble Tribunal. In this regard, the submissions made are as under: 1. When I, the Appellant, was serving as C.O.C. at the Labour Court, Amreli from 01/07/1998 to 04/07/2000, for the incident which took place during that time, on 06/02/2001, the President issued a Yadi regarding 8 points simultaneously and decided to initiate Departmental Inquiry vide order dated 06-02-2001. 2. I, the Appellant had denied the charges in my detailed reply dated 21/04/2001 and explained the real situation. Thus, since no cognizance of the reply was taken by the President and as the decision for conducting an inquiry was being taken alongwith the Statement Of Imputations, this reply was directly addressed to the Inquiry Officer only. As per Rule 9: 5(c) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules, the appointment of Inquiry Officer is to be done, if it seems necessary, after considering the reply of the Appellant. If such an appointment is made at the time of issuing the Statement of Imputations itself, it would mean that it was decided by the Disciplinary Authority in advance to impose minimum punishment in such a manner and that no mind has been applied on the reply. Therefore, this inquiry is completely illegal. 3. If such an appointment is made at the time of issuing the Statement of Imputations itself, it would mean that it was decided by the Disciplinary Authority in advance to impose minimum punishment in such a manner and that no mind has been applied on the reply. Therefore, this inquiry is completely illegal. 3. Even the Departmental Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration deposition of the Prosecution Witnesses and deposition of any witness for the Defence has not been taken into consideration or it has not been admitted is unilaterally. Therefore also, this Inquiry report being ex-parte, punishment may not be imposed after considering and admitting the same. 4. The Departmental Inquiry Officer had, by submitting the Report dated 30/03/1992, believed the Point No. 1 out of 8 Points, as established, Point No. 2 to 7 as not established and Point no. 8 as partly established, out of which, Point no. 1 was in connection with inappropriate and rude behaviour with the Labour Court Judge Mr. Ashara and other members of the staff, and regarding rushing towards the Judge to assault him with the scissor, etc. This was the main charge wherein the deposition of prime witness, Judge Mr. Ashara was recorded. While Mr. Ashara was serving in Amreli District as a Judge, there were many complaints against him regarding bribery and corruption as well as of arrogant behaviour and an inquiry was also being conducted in this regard. He tried to get me dismissed, but Mr. Ashara also kept on telling me, the Appellant, to co-operate and facilitate him in the act of bribery and corruption. But as no co-operation was given by me, the Appellant, he instigated the junior employees engaged on a contractual basis, and raised such an inquiry, and even upon asking such questions, Mr. Ashara denied it by giving unworthy reply that it was a personal question. Thus, as the witness himself is an accused and as per my knowledge, he has been recently suspended by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court for charges of corruption in Amreli, he cannot be considered as an independent witness and I, the Appellant had made representation before the Inquiry Officer, Despite that, due to some unforeseen reasons, the Inquiry Officer did not take cognizance of any such fact. Thus, as the main charge has been framed by instigating the contractual employees due to Ashara Sir, the punishment of “economic death” imposed by aggravating such accusation is totally illegal and unjustified. 5. Each of the witnesses whose depositions have been recorded admit that they do not have the authority to appoint or relieve such employees. Despite that, because of Ashara Sir, they have given contradictory deposition............in connection with transfer of I the appellant to Amreli. Thus, the accusations are not being corroborated by even a single independent witness. 6. Honorable Tribunal states the fact that the alleged accusation Nos. 2 to 7 were of serious nature, which have not been proved because the evidence which are there with regard to these accusations, Ashara Sir or his accomplice are not included as a witness therein. Hence after taking independent evidences into consideration, Inquiry Officer has assumed these allegations as not proved, not only that but these findings have also been accepted by the disciplinary authority. This fact indicates that, disciplinary officer has punished I the appellant only to save Ashara Sir, so that in future, if I, the appellant is kept a witness in the inquiry against Ashara Sir, then I would give deposition in his favor. This is the only motive, which is a pressure tacti, which also indicates the fact that the disciplinary authority himself is biased. 7. Accusation Number 8 which is assumed to be partially proved, wherein also, the advocates who were examined, as per their statement before investigating officer, they have not supported that we used to misbehave with advocates or applicants. Despite this, taking their statements in primary investigation into consideration, and by not admitting the deposition of these witnesses, the investigating officer has accepted this accusation as partially proved, which is also not legal. 8. The surprising thing is such that in his order on page number 39, the disciplinary officer states in a very plain and simple language that in the present situation, despite having environment of discord, general public look towards the Court with much honour and give a lot of respect to the Judge. 8. The surprising thing is such that in his order on page number 39, the disciplinary officer states in a very plain and simple language that in the present situation, despite having environment of discord, general public look towards the Court with much honour and give a lot of respect to the Judge. This fact may be true to a large extent, but in the Court, where there is a corrupt Judge like Ashara Sir, against whom the Honorable Gujarat High Court has been conducting an inquiry and who is liable to be suspended, for such a Court, this statement is very inappropriate and out of place. This fact is not taken into consideration by Opponent-President. Thus, he also by having a biased approach towards a Judge, and as the witness is a Judge, due to this reason only, he has imposed a serious punishment by projecting the incident to be of a serious nature, which is not legal. 9. I, the appellant, am completely innocent and have not shown any indiscipline. I, the appellant have rendered service of more than 30 years and have never even been reprimanded.” 6.7. The reply came to be filed by the respondent, in the said appeal. 6.8. Considering the submissions advanced by the respective parties, the Tribunal passed the order dated 20.10.2004, which is duly produced at page-146. It is apposite to refer to Para-5 of the order, which reads thus: “5. It is clear from the fact that the employees who were appointed on contract in the Amreli Labour Court have been appointed by Labour Judge Mr. Ashara as per the Cross Examination and it is but natural that the matter of taking work from the employees so appointed has been handeled by the delinqauent as a Registrar and this work was alloted to him as a Senior. But it has also been established by the evidence from these employees as proved in the evidence that instead of taking work before the Investigating Officer, he used to take work from them according to his own will. Generally, if there are some errors of the Senior Officer, it is necessary to point out the same if it is found proper, then the officer on the establishment has to make a presentation accordingly before the judge. Generally, if there are some errors of the Senior Officer, it is necessary to point out the same if it is found proper, then the officer on the establishment has to make a presentation accordingly before the judge. As such, there is no reasonable explanation as to under what circumstances the appellant avoided behaving rudely against the judge and the superior officer. Labour Judge Mr. Ashara may do whatever judicial proceedings he does at his own risk and on his own responsibility, but it has been found that the appellant has highlighted such things by using some of his administrative or judicial weak links as a weapon so that he might feel insulted in the public who are seeking for justice or in the presence of the lawyers community. The statements of any of the employees and witnesses who have been obtained in the Preliminary Inquiry and the Departmental Inquiry clearly proves the fact that the appellant has not left a single opportunity to misbehave in a manner that would harm the dignity of the Court and the Presiding Judge of the court. In view of the manner in which Presiding Judge Mr. Ashara states in the statement that the incident of attack on the Presiding Judge through a chisel, as he is a Senior officer and a competent authority, if he (the delinquent) could have considered this thing, then such an absurd incident or eventually such an allegation could have been avoided. But it appears that the appellant himself was administrating the entire Court and for that he has not avoided ay controversy to present certain matters of the Presiding Judge by his conduct or speech while in the presence of general public which would harm the reputation of the Court as well as the Judge. The labour court judge works under the supervision and administration of the Honourable High Court, and the work of finding out their shortcomings or flaws by the staff working under him is not the act done in the interest of the office as well as in the public under any circumstances. Unfortunately, such note should be taken that it has also been submitted that Mr. Ashara is under suspension, but taht matter is subject to the decision of Honourable High court. Unfortunately, such note should be taken that it has also been submitted that Mr. Ashara is under suspension, but taht matter is subject to the decision of Honourable High court. If the staff under him takes over the administration of the court and the task of issuing the True copies by using it as a weapon against the Presiding Judge, then such an employee should not be granted of looking to him with soft corner as because he has rendered a long service (to the department). According to our humble opinion, such an absured act of the appellant is clearly revealed from the evidence that during the continuation of his service, the appellant has interfered in the matter of the Presiding Officer which does not affect his job (of the delinquent). Then, instead of training the employees working under him, the tendency to make them to do the desired work of the Xerox operator as desired to satisfy his needs by threatening them, this act of him indisputably disqualifies the appellant as a government employee. A defense has also been taken that according to the Presiding Judge Ashara, the appellant was not creating a favourable atmosphere (for him - for Judge) during service, therefore, he (the judge) have created an alliance with other employees by making them to submit false applications and have created the present chapter/ issue against the delinquent. But if the questions asked in the Cross Examination of all the staff members as well as to Mr. Ashara, (the Judge), then this defence (of the delinquent) becomes only and only a lame defense. Because generally it cannot be assumed at all that one employee gets involved in wrong things against another employee at the behest of an Officer. It is not so that only a judge can contribute to maintain the sacred atmosphere of the court, but 90% of the contribution in maintaining this sanctity is contributed by other employees also. Because generally it cannot be assumed at all that one employee gets involved in wrong things against another employee at the behest of an Officer. It is not so that only a judge can contribute to maintain the sacred atmosphere of the court, but 90% of the contribution in maintaining this sanctity is contributed by other employees also. Although it is unnecessary to mention this matter over here, but it is mentioned, because if the statements of the Typist and the other two employees in this case are taken into consideration, then it cannot be proved that they have been giving the statements against the appellant without any reason and as a result, if we take note of their facts, including the Cross Examination, then it is crystal-clear that the present appellant has contributed the most in polluting the atmosphere of the Amreli Labour Court as corrupted and like a trading firm. Even the answers to the questions proposed by the learned lawyer Mr. Vachharajani during the Cross Examination of Labour Judge Mr. Ashara does not proves the fact that as a Presiding Judge, Mr. Ashara has created this false chapter against the present deliquent with the co-operation of other staff. Every citizen, lawyer and employee who are concerned with the judiciary are aware of the fact that the most important position in the Court after the Judge is that of the Clerk of the Court or the Registrar who make the most contribution to the society as well as in the Bar of Lawyers to creat an image of judiciary and in this matter, it is not the case that in order to harass one of his employee in wrong manner, the Judge himself, along with the other employee, should prove the error in the evidence of the defense or by the cross-examination in order to create the circumstances of being dismissed from the job by creating a false chapter. In our humble opinion, the absurd impression that the present appellant has created among the employees during his service in the Amreli Court, as well as for personal gain with the authority and to take over all the administration of the court, are the facts which have been proved undisputedly. It has mainly been submitted on behalf of the appellant that allegations like dismissal after 35 years of service are not serious. It has mainly been submitted on behalf of the appellant that allegations like dismissal after 35 years of service are not serious. Even if we do not accept that representation from the above discussion, the punishment of dismissal seems to be excessive. In our humble opinion, in view of the serious allegations of misbehaviour and lack of discipline, the punishment for compulsory retirement of the disputants will be appropriate. Hence, on partly allowing the appeal qua reducing the punishment, the following Final Order is passed. Final Order The Dispute Petition (Appeal) of the Appellant is partly allowed, and the order about the dismissal of the Appellant from the Government service as per Rule - 6(8) issued vide the disputed Order of the Opponent is hereby quashed and instead of dismissal of the Appellant from the service, the punishment of compulsory retirement is imposed. Pronounced Today on 20th October, 2004.” 7. At this stage it is apposite to refer to the position of law with regard to the concurrent findings arrived at by the competent authorities, as ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hari Prakash Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR Online 2023 SC 512, relevant Para-25 to 30 reads thus: “25. The Appellants herein, before the impugned order passed by the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction, had two concurrent findings in their favour by way of decisions rendered by the lower courts. The Appellants had proved their possession over the subject land by leading evidence, and the veracity of the same, by way of proper procedure, was tested by both the lower courts. The High Court, however, without evidence being led by the respondents, set aside the concurrent findings vide impugned order and judgment dated 04.02.2013. 26. This Court, in a catena of judgments has held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate evidence and arrival of finding of facts, unless the authority which passed the original order did so in excess of its jurisdiction, or if the findings were patently perverse. 27. 26. This Court, in a catena of judgments has held that the High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate evidence and arrival of finding of facts, unless the authority which passed the original order did so in excess of its jurisdiction, or if the findings were patently perverse. 27. In the case of B.K. Muniraju vs. State of Karnataka, this Court, while expounding on the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, held that the same cannot be used to re- appreciate evidence unless an error of fact appraised by the lower court is manifest and such an error has caused grave injustice. 28. Further, in the case of Krishnanand vs. Director of Consolidation, this Court, in a similar fact circumstance wherein concurrent findings of the lower courts were dismissed by the High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction, held that re-appreciation of evidence under Article 226 can only be done in cases where the original order by the lower court was passed in excess of its jurisdiction or if the findings of the lower courts were patently perverse. 29. It is our opinion that as far as the present case is concerned, the concurrent findings of the lower courts are neither perverse, nor the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction. In such a scenario, wherein neither of the conditions were satisfied, the High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence in writ jurisdiction and come to a different conclusion. 30. It must be noted that the introduction and admission of evidence at the trial stage goes through a rigorous process, wherein each piece of evidence introduced is subject to very strict scrutiny, and every party is given the opportunity to test the veracity of the said evidence through procedure established by law. The legitimacy of the evidence, at every stage, is questioned, and the opposing party is given the right to question the said evidence by placing their doubts regarding the same in court. Such a mechanism in law of going through evidence, is not available to the High Court while exercising its powers under writ jurisdiction, and therefore, evidence which has been confirmed by the lower courts, must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases.” 8. Such a mechanism in law of going through evidence, is not available to the High Court while exercising its powers under writ jurisdiction, and therefore, evidence which has been confirmed by the lower courts, must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases.” 8. This Court has also gone through the documents that are produced on record, wherein, in the inquiry report, at Page-87, it appears that the advocate of the delinquent was asked to produce whatever oral representation and the witnesses which were to be examined on their behalf. In this context, they made a statement that there is neither any evidence to be produced on behalf of their client Mr. Raja nor there are any oral arguments to present at this stage. In these circumstances, before the proceedings of the oral inquiry are declared to have been completed, the Presenting Officer was informed to submit his written brief by 10.10.2001 and it was asked to submit it and send a copy of the same directly to the delinquent. It was suggested that, once the delinquent receives a written brief from the Presentation Officer, he will send his final defence (to the Departmental Inquiry Officer) directly to his home address in the next 10 days. Thereafter, the process of Oral Inquiry was then declared completed. The Presenting Officer on being frequently seeking time to submit the brief due to his personal difficulties, the same was accepted and the brief was lastly presented on 29-01-2002 (which has been taken on record and marked as P.S. 3), the same was also provided to the delinquent. The delinquent of the matter - Mr. Raja had submitted his Final Defence regarding the present matter through his letter dated 07-02-2002, which have been marked as D.S. 6 and the same is incorporated in the record. 9. Considering the reasoning given by the Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal has considered the every aspect of the facts of the case and considering the services of the petitioner, which was for more than 34 years, reduced the punishment to compulsory retirement, which in the opinion of this Court, requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Considering the reasoning given by the Tribunal, wherein, the Tribunal has considered the every aspect of the facts of the case and considering the services of the petitioner, which was for more than 34 years, reduced the punishment to compulsory retirement, which in the opinion of this Court, requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. In light of the aforesaid findings of the inquiry officer, it appears that opportunity was also granted to the petitioner herein, who was represented through his advocate, who choose neither to examine the witnesses nor to depose himself, even-after that, the petitioner was granted ample of opportunity and in view thereof, in the opinion of this Court, it cannot be held that the inquiry is vitiated. In fact, upon going through the records, it emerges that though the inquiry was initiated at Amreli, the petitioner herein was apprehensive with respect to the petitioner’s security and adhering to the same, the proceedings came to be transferred to the Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad. For the foregoing reasons also, in the opinion of this Court, the proceedings initiated by the respondent authority are in accordance with law, after following due procedure, having followed the principles of natural justice and taking into consideration the merits of the case, position of law as referred above, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the Petition stands dismissed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule is discharged.