ORDER : Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 26/7/2013 (Annexure P/4), whereby, the punishment of reduction of pay- scale by one increment for one year with cumulative effect has been imposed upon him on account of certain misconduct found proved against him in departmental enquiry. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24/10/2013 (Annexure P/3), whereby, his appeal against the order of punishment was dismissed. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 2/3/2016 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 5/5/2021(Annexrue P/1),whereby, his mercy appeal and the review application have been dismissed. 2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Constable at Police Station Padav, District Gwalior. It is alleged against him that on 21/6/2012, two suspects namely Rahul Valmiki and Monu Khatik were nabbed at checking point by Assistant Sub Inspector - Ramniwas Sharma in relation to theft of a motorcycle. Aforesaid two persons were sent to Police Station under escort of petitioner and another Constable Susheel Chauhan. It is alleged against the petitioner that he unauthorisedly let free Rahul Valmiki. 3. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the then City Superintendent of Police Shri Arvind Dubey, who submitted his report on 23/7/2012 (Annexure P/5). The allegation against the petitioner was found prima facie correct. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was served to the petitioner on 27/7/2012 (Annexure P/6), wherein, following two charges were levelled against him:- 4. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet which was not found satisfactory and accordingly the departmental enquiry was conducted. The then City Superintendent of Police Ms. Pratibha Tripathi was appointed as Enquiry Officer who conducted the disciplinary enquiry. As many as eight prosecution witnesses were examined in support of charges while the petitioner examined three witnesses in his defence. The Enquiry Officer submitted her report to the disciplinary authority which is brought on record as Annexure P/9. The Enquiry Officer did not find the charges proved against the petitioner. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, who is also the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, reconsidered the matter. He did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and held the charges proved against the petitioner based upon the statements of ASI - Ramniwas Sharma (PW/5), Constable-Susheel Chauhan (PW/4), Constable- Pramod Kumar Sharma (PW/6) and Additional Superintendent of Police- Arvind Dubey (PW/8). He did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and held the charges proved against the petitioner based upon the statements of ASI - Ramniwas Sharma (PW/5), Constable-Susheel Chauhan (PW/4), Constable- Pramod Kumar Sharma (PW/6) and Additional Superintendent of Police- Arvind Dubey (PW/8). A show cause notice was accordingly issued to the petitioner on 28/6/2013 (Annexure P/10), whereby, the copy of enquiry report was also forwarded to him and the petitioner was asked to give his explanation within a period of five days. The petitioner gave his explanation on 5/7/2013 (Annexure P/13) again denying the allegations made against him. The disciplinary authority then passed the impugned order dated 26/7/2013 (Annexure P/4), whereby, the punishment of reduction in pay-scale by one increment for one year with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 24/10/2013 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner's mercy appeal as also the review application also suffered dismissal by the order dated 2/3/2016 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 5/5/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by Inspector General of Police, Bhopal. Challenging these orders, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the impugned orders, submitted that no evidence is available on record so as to substantiate the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority in the show cause notice dated 28/6/2013. He submitted that none of the witnesses, examined in the enquiry, stated against the petitioner, and therefore, it is a case of no evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellate authority failed to consider the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal and has casually dismissed the appeal only by observing that the grounds raised in the appeal are without any basis and substance. It is his submission that the Inspector General of Police while considering the mercy appeal and review application also failed to adequately consider the grounds raised by the petitioner. The learned counsel referred to the statement of ASI-Ramniwas Sharma (PW/5), who was the star witness of the prosecution, wherein he stated in his cross-examination that he nabbed only Monu Khatik. Likewise, the other witnesses namely, Constable - Susheel Chauhan (PW/4) and Constable- Pramod Kumar Sharma (PW/6) also did not state against the petitioner. The learned counsel referred to the statement of ASI-Ramniwas Sharma (PW/5), who was the star witness of the prosecution, wherein he stated in his cross-examination that he nabbed only Monu Khatik. Likewise, the other witnesses namely, Constable - Susheel Chauhan (PW/4) and Constable- Pramod Kumar Sharma (PW/6) also did not state against the petitioner. He further submitted that the then CSP- Arvind Dubey had only conducted a preliminary enquiry and therefore, he was not the eye-witness to the incident. Therefore, his statement was not relevant at all. The learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to the statements of the defence witnesses and submitted that all these defence witnesses have supported the petitioner's case. Two of the defence witnesses were infact part of police team alongwith petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid, it is the submission of petitioner's counsel that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner on the basis of which the punishment could have been imposed upon him. He therefore, prays for setting aside of the impugned orders and for grant of consequential benefits. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned action of the respondents and raised a ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in filing the present petition. It is his submission that the petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 24/10/2013, while, the mercy appeal also got dismissed on 2/3/2016. Therefore, the cause of action, if any, for filing the present petition arose on 24/10/2013 and at best on 2/3/2016. In order to overcome the delay, the petitioner intentionally filed a review application without there being any provision for the same and taking the date of rejection of his review application to be the cause of action, he filed the present writ petition. It is his submission that the writ petition suffers from defect of delay and latches and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 9. The learned counsel for the State then submitted that the disciplinary authority has appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and has come to a conclusion that the charges against the petitioner have been adequately proved. He submitted that the scope of interference in the disciplinary matters is very limited and this Court can interfere only when there is violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that the scope of interference in the disciplinary matters is very limited and this Court can interfere only when there is violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that since the petitioner has not alleged any defect in the enquiry, no interference is warranted in the present case. 10. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that even though, the charges were not found proved against the petitioner by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority was competent to disagree with such findings and record its own reasons for holding the charges proved. Thus, there is no procedural lapse in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner and therefore, no interference is warranted. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Considered the arguments and perused the record. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the case, the objection raised by the State counsel with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court in interfering in disciplinary matter needs to be addressed. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015)2 SCC 610 , has laid down certain parameters, wherein, this Court can interfere in the disciplinary matters. The Apex Court held in para 12 as under:- "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, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry 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 Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. 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 Articles 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." 13. Thus, this Court can interfere in a case, where, there is no evidence available on record in support of the findings recorded against the employee and/or the conclusion on the very face of its is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion. The entire arguments of the petitioner's counsel are based upon the ground that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner in the disciplinary enquiry and it is a case of no evidence. Thus, this Court is now required to see as to whether, there is any evidence available on record to support the findings recorded against the petitioner. 14. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 21/6/2012, two persons namely Rahul Valmiki and Monu Khatik were nabbed by the police team headed by ASI-Ramniwas Sharma. When these two persons were sent to Police Station alongwith petitioner and other Constable-Susheel Chauhan, the petitioner unauthorisedly let free Rahul Valmiki. The petitioner's defence is that only Monu Khatik was nabbed and Rahul Valmiki was never nabbed by the Police team. There is serious discrepancy in evidence with regard to time and date of incident. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the evidence collected during course of enquiry is now required to be examined. 15. The petitioner's defence is that only Monu Khatik was nabbed and Rahul Valmiki was never nabbed by the Police team. There is serious discrepancy in evidence with regard to time and date of incident. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the evidence collected during course of enquiry is now required to be examined. 15. To begin with, a copy of Rojnamcha has been placed on record as Annexure P/8, which mentions the date of incident as 22/6/2012 at around 22.05 hours. In the Rojnamcha, it is mentioned that only Monu Khatik was nabbed alongwith the motorcycle and he informed the Police party that he stole the motorcycle alongwith Rahul Valmiki. Thus, as per Rojnamcha, it is not the case that Rahul was also nabbed alongwith Monu. 16. The findings of the disciplinary authority are based upon the statements of ASI - Ramniwas Sharma (PW/5), Constable-Susheel Chauhan (PW/4), Constable- Pramod Kumar Sharma (PW/6) and Additional Superintendent of Police- Arvind Dubey (the then CSP) (PW/8). Out of the aforesaid, four persons, ASI-Ramniwas Sharma was the person, who was leading the Police team. It is he who reported the alleged act of petitioner to Station House Office. He is thus the star witness of the prosecution. If his statement is seen, though in his statement-in-chief, he has stated about nabbing Rahul Valmiki also alongwith Monu Khatik, however, in the cross- examination he has specifically stated that only Monu Khatik was nabbed and Monu informed that motorcycle was stolen by him alongwith Rahul Valmiki. The question and specific answer given by ASI-Ramniwas Sharma is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 17. Next is the Constable- Susheel Chauhan, who was examined as PW/4. So far as this witness is concerned, he was also one of the members of police team, which nabbed Monu Khatik. This witness stated that two boys were nabbed by the Police Party at around 9.00 am near Phoolbagh Chawki and they were sent to Police Station by ASI-Ramniwas Sharma under the escort of petitioner and Constable-Lalji Tripathi. If the statement of this witness is seen, there is material contradiction in the prosecution story and his statement. Firstly, as per the prosecution story, the incident is of 22/6/2012 at around 10 in the night, whereas, this witness has stated that the incident is of 21/6/2012 that to around 9 am. If the statement of this witness is seen, there is material contradiction in the prosecution story and his statement. Firstly, as per the prosecution story, the incident is of 22/6/2012 at around 10 in the night, whereas, this witness has stated that the incident is of 21/6/2012 that to around 9 am. Further, as per prosecution story, both the boys were sent to Police Station alongwith petitioner and this witness whereas this witness stated that Lalji Tripathi was sent alongwith petitioner. Pertinently, Lalji Tripathi was examined in the enquiry as defence witness. 18. Another witness, whose statement is relied upon by the disciplinary authority, is Constable-Pramod Kumar Sharma (PW/6). He was not one of the members of the Police Team. He has only stated that while he was sitting in the police vehicle in police station, he saw petitioner standing with a boy at the gate of Police Station and after some time, petitioner proceeded towards Padav Chawk and the boy left towards Gandhinagar. In the cross-examination, he specifically stated that he does not know the boy standing with petitioner and it is possible that the said boy was petitioner's friend/relative. 19. Thus, all these three witnesses, whose statements have been relied upon by the disciplinary authority, have not specifically stated that the petitioner unauthorisedly released Rahul Valmiki. On the contrary, in his cross-examination, ASI-Ramniwas Sharma, specifically stated that only Monu Khatik was nabbed by the Police Party. This supported by narration of incident in Rojnamcha. 20. So far as the statement of Additional Superintendent of Police-Arvind Dubey (PW/8) is concerned, he was admittedly not the eye-witness and had only conducted the preliminary enquiry. So his statement can only be used in corroboration with the statement of other witnesses. 21. Additionally, the petitioner has examined three witnesses out of which, Constable-Lalji Tripathi (DW/2) and Constable Chatur Singh (DW/3) were member of the Police team. They have specifically stated that only Monu Khatik was nabbed by the ASI-Ramniwas Sharma and Rahul Valmiki was not brought to the Police Station. 22. In view of the discussion made above, it is apparent as noon day that there is no iota of evidence brought on the floor of enquiry to suggest that Rahul Valmiki was nabbed by the Police Party and was sent to Police Station alongwith petitioner. Rather, the evidence is on the contrary. 22. In view of the discussion made above, it is apparent as noon day that there is no iota of evidence brought on the floor of enquiry to suggest that Rahul Valmiki was nabbed by the Police Party and was sent to Police Station alongwith petitioner. Rather, the evidence is on the contrary. Thus, the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority/reviewing authority miserably failed in appreciating the evidence collected during the course of enquiry. 23. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no evidence available on record to support the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. It is thus a case of no evidence. The disciplinary authority thus erred in discarding findings of enquiry officer without any cogent reason. The appellate authority also failed to consider the aforesaid aspects in its order dated 24/10/2013 and casually dismissed the appeal by observing that the grounds raised by the petitioner are without any basis and substance. Thus, the order passed by the appellate authority is also found to be vague and is passed without application of mind. 24. Learned counsel for the State has seriously raised an objection with regard to delay and laches on the part of petitioner in filing the petition. He placed reliance upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Bichitrananda Behera Vs. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in (2023) 18 SCC 420 . No doubt, there is delay on the part of petitioner in approaching the Court. However, it is a fact that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner has a cumulative effect not only during his service but also on his retiral dues. In view of conclusion reached by this Court, as discussed above, this Court do not find it proper to dismiss this petition on the ground of delay and latches particularly when the relief to be granted to the petitioner can moulded appropriately. 25. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. The order, dated 26/7/2013 (Annexure P/4), order dated 24/10/2013 (Annexure P/3), order dated 2/3/2016 (Annexure P/2) and order dated 5/5/2021(Annexure P/1) are set aside. The respondents are directed to restore the increment which was reduced by way of punishment. However, on account of delay and latches on the part of petitioner, he is held not entitled to actual monetary benefit of such restoration of increment upto the date of filing of this petition. The respondents are directed to restore the increment which was reduced by way of punishment. However, on account of delay and latches on the part of petitioner, he is held not entitled to actual monetary benefit of such restoration of increment upto the date of filing of this petition. In other words, the respondents are directed to revise the petitioner's salary notionally upto the date of filing of this petition which is 25/6/2021 and the petitioner shall be entitled to actual monetary benefit from the date of filing of this petition. 26. The petition is allowed and disposed off with the aforesaid directions.