ORDER : Vivek Jain, J. The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/8 which is penalty order dated 28.02.2020 whereby the petitioner has been punished with withholding two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of loss of Rs. 2.00 lacs. The said order has been confirmed in appeal vide order Annexure P/11 dated 30.01.2021 passed by the Chief Engineer. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner was charge-sheeted vide Annexure P/1 dated 24.06.2017 with two charges. First charge was that on 21 & 22 December, 2015, Nagod Distribution Center under O&M Division Maihar was under supervision of the petitioner. The petitioner took work in the distribution Centre from one Lalua Choudhary who was unskilled labourer, and 8 months after of the incident, he submitted that due to floods the record of the sub-station has been destroyed. 3. The second charge which was that the petitioner was posted in Nagod Distribution Centre on 07.07.2014 and he has been negligent in discharging duties of the distribution centre incharge and he took work from one Lalua Choudhary unauthorizedly as a result of which on 22.12.2015 the said Lalua suffered electrical accident resulting in amputation of hands of Lalua Choudhary on account of which he had to be compensated with Rs. 2.00 lacs. 4. The petitioner denied the charges and submitted that the sub-station was being managed by the contractor M/s. R.D. Shukla. The sub- station has been outsourced from private contractor who was running the sub-station. As the contract of the earlier contractor M/s. R.D. Shukla had come to an end on 20.12.2015 then the Assistant Engineer must have instructed the staff of the contractor to continue working till the new contractor took over the charge on 23.12.2015. He stated that the contractor used to work under the instructions of Assistant Engineer and the sub-station had been outsourced and therefore, he cannot be held liable for accident that occurred in the Sub-Station on 22.12.2015. 5. A departmental enquiry ensued and in the departmental enquiry, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of both the charges but the disciplinary authority gave notice of disagreement and then after taking reply of the petitioner passed the impugned order of penalty Annexure P/8. 6. 5. A departmental enquiry ensued and in the departmental enquiry, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of both the charges but the disciplinary authority gave notice of disagreement and then after taking reply of the petitioner passed the impugned order of penalty Annexure P/8. 6. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 22.12.2015 there was some break down and to repair the break down, the line had to be shut down. The lineman of the area namely Kalika Prasad Bagdi had taken permit from Lalua Choudhary who had discharged the line from the sub- station and when the repair work had been completed, then Lalua Choudhary was asked to recharge the line but in the process of recharging the line, he incidentally touched the incoming jumper as a result of which he got electrocuted and suffered non fatal injuries resulting in permanent disability. It was further mentioned in the imputation of charges that upto 20.12.2015, the substation was being operated by M/s. R.D. Shukla and from 23.12.2015 the sub-station has been operated by M/s Sai Kripa Engineers. 7. From the imputation of the charge-sheet itself it is evident that there was no contractor to operate the substation on 21 & 22 December 2015. The supply of electricity being a essential service it could not be cut off and if the management of the Company was so much negligent in its duties that in a substation catering to a number of villages the earlier contractor’s contract had got over on 20.12.2015 then it awarded new contract only w.e.f. 23.12.2015, then for the intervening period of 2 to 3 days the entire area could not be expected to be in darkness without electricity. The Field Officer had to arrange something to operate the substation so that the electricity could be supplied in the area till the new contractor took over. It is in fact, a case of grave negligence of the company Management whereby they had not made any arrangement for electricity supply for 21 and 22 December-2015 for the number of villages which were served by the sub station. 8. It is further mentioned in the imputation of charges that as per the application signed by daughter-in-law of the injured labourer, he was on duty from 4:00 PM to 12:00 PM and that he has been working in the substation for last 12 years. 8. It is further mentioned in the imputation of charges that as per the application signed by daughter-in-law of the injured labourer, he was on duty from 4:00 PM to 12:00 PM and that he has been working in the substation for last 12 years. It is clear from the imputation itself that the labourer who had met with the accident had been working from last 12 years and he might have been working as outsourced labourer or contractor’s labourer. However, it is the case of the respondents themselves that the said labourer was working since last 12 years in the sub-station. In such circumstances it cannot be inferred that after working for 12 years in the substation that person was still unskilled because having discharged the duties for 12 years was itself a sufficient time period to have acquired skill to work in the sub-station. In the sub-station the operators perform work of charging and discharging the lines by operating the control panel. It is the case of the respondents that while operating the control panel he accidently touched a incoming wire and met with electrical accident. A person who has been working the said machines for 12 years then meeting with electrical accident on one day cannot be inferred that he was unskilled and because of that he met with an accident. Once a person operates sensitive machinery then risk of accident is always inherent and implicit in his work. High voltage electricity in itself is a dangerous commodity which if not tamed in insulations and switch gears, can create havoc for life and limb of humans and animals. While dealing with a dangerous article accident can happen at any time and it could not be inferred that the operator who was working in the sub-station for last 12 years and met with an accident on one fine day, that it was result of negligence of the junior engineer who was not even present in the sub-station. While dealing with a dangerous article accident can happen at any time and it could not be inferred that the operator who was working in the sub-station for last 12 years and met with an accident on one fine day, that it was result of negligence of the junior engineer who was not even present in the sub-station. Though the petitioner had denied the charges and had stated that he was not the person who has instructed the labourer to work, but even if it is inferred that the petitioner had instructed the said labourer to operate the sub-station, even then it was something the petitioner was doing which the company management had not risen up to the occasion to do because electricity being essential service, the entire sub-station could not have been shut down for two or three days which was the intervening period within which old contractor had left the work and new one had taken over the work. 9. The enquiry report also gave a clean chit to the petitioner and from perusal of the enquiry report placed on record as Annexure P/6 it has duly been recorded by the Inquiry Officer who has mentioned that the injured person Lalua Choudhary was working since last 4-5 years in the same sub-station and that he was working under the instruction of the Assistant Engineer. The Assistant Engineer was also examined by the Inquiry Officer and he deposed the he did not know that the contract of M/s. R.D. Shukla has come to an end and he was under impression that the staff employed by earlier contractor is working as was working earlier because the contractor had not informed him that he has ceased work in the sub-station and upto 22.12.2015, employees employed by M/s. R.D. Shukla were working in the substation. On this assertion the Inquiry Officer did not find charge no. 1 to have been proved and the enquiry officer further gave a finding of fact that there was flooding in July-2016 as a result of which the record was destroyed. The Inquiry Officer in relation to charge no. 2 gave categorical finding of fact that the accident occurred with Lalua Choudhary is an accident as per human error which does not involve negligence of any other officer or employee. On these findings, the Inquiry Officer gave clean chit to the petitioner. 10. The Inquiry Officer in relation to charge no. 2 gave categorical finding of fact that the accident occurred with Lalua Choudhary is an accident as per human error which does not involve negligence of any other officer or employee. On these findings, the Inquiry Officer gave clean chit to the petitioner. 10. However, the disciplinary authority issued a notice of disagreement only reiterating the allegations against the petitioner in the charge-sheet and in the imputation of charges without looking to any of the statements recorded by Inquiry Officer and without demolishing the findings of the Inquiry Officer on which he had recorded the findings. 11. The disciplinary authority came out with another reason that there was no permit to work on the line and this aspect establishes the negligence of the petitioner. However the accident that occurred with Lalua Choudhary was not an accident on the line but the accident in the premises in the substation while recharging the line which was shut-off for the purpose of maintenance. Therefore, it appears that the disciplinary authority has disbelieved the report of Inquiry Officer by taking into consideration such facts which were not even part of the allegations against the petitioner and imputation of the charges. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents had argued that the scope of interference in the departmental enquiry is very limited. He has referred to number of judgments on the issue. 13. The aforesaid legal position is not at all disputed, that the scope of departmental enquiry and findings recorded therein is very limited. However, it is a case where this court has came to a conclusion by looking at imputation to the charges that there was infact, no negligence of the petitioner and this is even the finding recorded by the Inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority had disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer by only reiterating the allegations of the charge-sheet and brought out certain facts which are not the part of the allegations and this did not match with the manner in which incident has taken place. It is settled in law that the court in exercise of judicial review can see if the case is based on no evidence and if the charge-sheet has not disclosed any misconduct. 14. It is settled in law that the court in exercise of judicial review can see if the case is based on no evidence and if the charge-sheet has not disclosed any misconduct. 14. In the case of Brahmanand Chaturvedi vs. State of M.P. & others reported in 2013 SCC OnLine MP 8630, it has been held by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court that it is the duty of the enquiry officer and he is bound to consider the statement of each witness and assign reason. The Co-ordinate Bench has held as under:- “11. The Enquiry Officer in his findings has disbelieved the statements of certain defence witnesses. In page 6 of his report, he opined that the witnesses Ballu Sen, Sachin Sen and Dhannu Sen belong to the same family and, therefore, they are “interested witnesses”. Their statements cannot be relied upon. In the opinion of this Court, strict principles of Evidence Act are not applicable in a disciplinary proceeding. If the statements of witnesses are trustworthy and in cross-examination their statements could not be demolished, merely because they are relative, their statements cannot be discarded. For this reason also the enquiry report is bad in law. The petitioner has taken a very categorical stand in the enquiry which is reproduced in internal page 7 of the enquiry report. The petitioner took a specific stand that the complainants have a track criminal record. As a counter- blast and with a view to pressurise the petitioner, they made incorrect allegations. If those allegations are accepted without proper scrutiny, it will be difficult for a police officer to act and render services in the field. The Enquiry Officer although recorded the petitioner's statement in internal page 7 of the report, did not deal with the said contention of the petitioner. The statements of various defence witnesses were not discussed. Thus, the enquiry report is perverse in nature. The Enquiry Officer is bound to consider the statement of each witness and assign reason. This view is taken by Supreme Court in (2001) 1 SCC 65 (Union of India v. K.A. Kittu), followed in [ (2006) 5 SCC 88 (M.V.Bijlani v. Union of India)].” 15. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , it was held as under :- 12. This view is taken by Supreme Court in (2001) 1 SCC 65 (Union of India v. K.A. Kittu), followed in [ (2006) 5 SCC 88 (M.V.Bijlani v. Union of India)].” 15. In the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , it was held as under :- 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. 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. (Emphasis supplied) 16. In view of the above, the impugned orders Annexure P/8 and P/11 cannot be sustained being vulnerable. They deserve to be and are hereby quashed. 17. Petition is allowed.