CWP-6448 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Pradeep Synghal State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari dated 14.07.2021, Inquiry report dated 07.01.2023, Vigilance and Disciplinary committee’s order dated 31.07.2023 and acceptance thereof consequential 2. lis in hand is adumbrated, thus: 6448-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pradeep Synghal V/s Punjab and others CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. R. Kartikeya, Mr. Pankaj Gautam & Mr. Abhishek Shukla Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior Deputy for respondent No.1. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ranjeet Singh Kalra & Ms. Seerat, Advocates for respondent Nos.2 & 3. ***** SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari dated 14.07.2021, Inquiry report dated 07.01.2023, Vigilance and Disciplinary committee’s order dated 31.07.2023 and acceptance thereof by the Full Court held on 06.10.2023 as well as the consequential order of dismissal from service Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the in hand is adumbrated, thus: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-6448-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.03.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondents JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL , Senior Advocate with Mr. R. Kartikeya, Mr. Pankaj Gautam & Mr. Abhishek Shukla for the petitioner. Salil Sabhlok, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ranjeet Singh Kalra & Ms. Seerat, Advocates ***** The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the Charge-sheet dated 14.07.2021, Inquiry report dated 07.01.2023, Vigilance and Disciplinary committee’s order dated 31.07.2023 and the subsequent the Full Court held on 06.10.2023 as well as the from service dated 14.11.2023. essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the (O&M) .2025 JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. R. Kartikeya, Mr. Pankaj Gautam & Mr. Abhishek Shukla, The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, sheet dated 14.07.2021, Inquiry report dated 07.01.2023, Vigilance and the subsequent the Full Court held on 06.10.2023 as well as the essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 (i). Examination in the year 2011, the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and in May 2016, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon. (ii). after having been afforded opportunity to inquiry was constituted wherein the statements of several witnesses, including the staff members petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.12.2020 Further, vide memorandum dated 14.07.2021, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, with prime allegations as follows: and Vikas Mittal, entertained and adjudicated upon seven criminal complaints of a similar nature, in a stereotypical and mechanical manner, without adhering to the mandatory statutory procedure com manipulated the territorial jurisdiction by fabricating the alleged incidents within the jurisdiction of the Court at Jagraon, where the petitioner was stationed at the relevant time. Consequently that the petitioner abused judicial discretion, acting as a mere in the hands of the complainants, thereby facilitating their ulterior motives and effectively assuming the role of their de facto recovery agent. position, unlawfully facilitated the complainants in the afore mentioned seven complaints by improperly deputing Process Servers 6448-2024 (O&M) Having qualified the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) Examination in the year 2011, the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and in May 2016, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon. Subsequent to the complaint(s) after having been afforded opportunity to inquiry was constituted wherein the statements of several witnesses, including the staff members was recorded co petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.12.2020 vide memorandum dated 14.07.2021, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, with prime allegations as follows: a. Firstly, the petitioner, in collusion with and Vikas Mittal, entertained and adjudicated upon seven criminal complaints of a similar nature, in a stereotypical and mechanical manner, without adhering to the mandatory statutory procedure complainants, being personally acquainted with the petitioner, manipulated the territorial jurisdiction by fabricating the alleged incidents within the jurisdiction of the Court at Jagraon, where the petitioner was stationed at the relevant time. Consequently that the petitioner abused judicial discretion, acting as a mere in the hands of the complainants, thereby facilitating their ulterior motives and effectively assuming the role of their de facto recovery agent. b. Secondly, the petitioner, in gross misuse of his official position, unlawfully facilitated the complainants in the afore mentioned seven complaints by improperly deputing Process Servers 2 Having qualified the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) Examination in the year 2011, the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and in May 2016, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagraon. Subsequent to the complaint(s) made against the petitioner and after having been afforded opportunity to respond thereto, a fact-finding inquiry was constituted wherein the statements of several witnesses, recorded consequent thereupon petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.12.2020 vide memorandum dated 14.07.2021, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner, with prime allegations as follows: , the petitioner, in collusion with one Pankaj Mittal and Vikas Mittal, entertained and adjudicated upon seven criminal complaints of a similar nature, in a stereotypical and mechanical manner, without adhering to the mandatory statutory procedure. The plainants, being personally acquainted with the petitioner, manipulated the territorial jurisdiction by fabricating the alleged incidents within the jurisdiction of the Court at Jagraon, where the petitioner was stationed at the relevant time. Consequently, it was said that the petitioner abused judicial discretion, acting as a mere puppet in the hands of the complainants, thereby facilitating their ulterior motives and effectively assuming the role of their de facto recovery oner, in gross misuse of his official position, unlawfully facilitated the complainants in the afore mentioned seven complaints by improperly deputing Process Servers Having qualified the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) Examination in the year 2011, the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) and in May 2016, the petitioner was promoted to the post against the petitioner and finding inquiry was constituted wherein the statements of several witnesses, thereupon the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.12.2020. vide memorandum dated 14.07.2021, a charge sheet was served Pankaj Mittal and Vikas Mittal, entertained and adjudicated upon seven criminal complaints of a similar nature, in a stereotypical and mechanical . The plainants, being personally acquainted with the petitioner, manipulated the territorial jurisdiction by fabricating the alleged incidents within the jurisdiction of the Court at Jagraon, where the was said puppet in the hands of the complainants, thereby facilitating their ulterior motives and effectively assuming the role of their de facto recovery oner, in gross misuse of his official position, unlawfully facilitated the complainants in the afore- mentioned seven complaints by improperly deputing Process Servers AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 to Maharashtra and Bihar, in flagrant violation of procedural mandates. Such actions, und advantage to the complainants, are asserted to be in derogation of the principles of judicial propriety and the high ethical standards expected of a judicial officer. Consequently, the petitioner faili engaging in conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer. office of the Nazar, Sub directly under properly maintained, thereby compromising financial accountability. The possibility of embezzlement arising from such irregularities could not be entirely ruled out. Moreover, the petitioner failed in his report these grave discrepancies to the competent authorities, thereby exhibiting dereliction of duty and a lack of administrative diligence. Such omission and negligence unbecoming of a judicial officer. certain advocates, the petitioner misused his official position by summoning a Process Server with the intent to intimidate and coerce him into silence. By doing so, the petitioner is accused of deliberat suppressing material facts in an attempt to evade disciplinary action against himself. Such conduct, allegedly driven by ulterior motives, is deemed to be inconsistent with the dignity, impartiality, and ethical standards expected of a judicial officer misconduct unbecoming of the office he holds. 6448-2024 (O&M) to Maharashtra and Bihar, in flagrant violation of procedural mandates. Such actions, undertaken with the intent to extend undue advantage to the complainants, are asserted to be in derogation of the principles of judicial propriety and the high ethical standards expected of a judicial officer. Consequently, the petitioner failing to uphold honesty, integrity and devotion to duty, thereby engaging in conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer. c. Thirdly, the receipt book of challans maintained in the office of the Nazar, Sub-Divisional Courts, Jagraon, which fell directly under the supervisory control of the petitioner, was not properly maintained, thereby compromising financial accountability. The possibility of embezzlement arising from such irregularities could not be entirely ruled out. Moreover, the petitioner failed in his report these grave discrepancies to the competent authorities, thereby exhibiting dereliction of duty and a lack of administrative diligence. Such omission and negligence were stated unbecoming of a judicial officer. d. Fourthly, that upon receipt of a complaint submitted by certain advocates, the petitioner misused his official position by summoning a Process Server with the intent to intimidate and coerce him into silence. By doing so, the petitioner is accused of deliberat suppressing material facts in an attempt to evade disciplinary action against himself. Such conduct, allegedly driven by ulterior motives, is deemed to be inconsistent with the dignity, impartiality, and ethical standards expected of a judicial officer misconduct unbecoming of the office he holds. 3 to Maharashtra and Bihar, in flagrant violation of procedural ertaken with the intent to extend undue advantage to the complainants, are asserted to be in derogation of the principles of judicial propriety and the high ethical standards expected of a judicial officer. Consequently, the petitioner was accused of ng to uphold honesty, integrity and devotion to duty, thereby engaging in conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer. , the receipt book of challans maintained in the Divisional Courts, Jagraon, which fell the supervisory control of the petitioner, was not properly maintained, thereby compromising financial accountability. The possibility of embezzlement arising from such irregularities could not be entirely ruled out. Moreover, the petitioner failed in his duty to report these grave discrepancies to the competent authorities, thereby exhibiting dereliction of duty and a lack of administrative diligence. were stated to constitute conduct , that upon receipt of a complaint submitted by certain advocates, the petitioner misused his official position by summoning a Process Server with the intent to intimidate and coerce him into silence. By doing so, the petitioner is accused of deliberat suppressing material facts in an attempt to evade disciplinary action against himself. Such conduct, allegedly driven by ulterior motives, is deemed to be inconsistent with the dignity, impartiality, and ethical standards expected of a judicial officer, thereby amounting to misconduct unbecoming of the office he holds. to Maharashtra and Bihar, in flagrant violation of procedural ertaken with the intent to extend undue advantage to the complainants, are asserted to be in derogation of the principles of judicial propriety and the high ethical standards expected accused of ng to uphold honesty, integrity and devotion to duty, thereby , the receipt book of challans maintained in the Divisional Courts, Jagraon, which fell the supervisory control of the petitioner, was not properly maintained, thereby compromising financial accountability. The possibility of embezzlement arising from such irregularities could duty to report these grave discrepancies to the competent authorities, thereby exhibiting dereliction of duty and a lack of administrative diligence. to constitute conduct , that upon receipt of a complaint submitted by certain advocates, the petitioner misused his official position by summoning a Process Server with the intent to intimidate and coerce him into silence. By doing so, the petitioner is accused of deliberately suppressing material facts in an attempt to evade disciplinary action against himself. Such conduct, allegedly driven by ulterior motives, is deemed to be inconsistent with the dignity, impartiality, and ethical , thereby amounting to AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 (iii). dated 14.07.2021 The said Inquiry Officer, vide wherein Charges No. 1, 2, and 4 were held to be duly substantiated against the petitioner. (iv). communication dated 01.03.2023, accompanied by a copy of t report. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted reply dated 07.04.2023, wherein the petitioner challenged the veracity and legitimacy of the inquiry report, raising objections regarding its genuineness, procedural propriety, and evidentiar (v). Committee of Respondent No.3 31.07.2023, considering the reply filed by the petitioner, resolved to accept the findings of the inquiry report recommended the imposition of the major penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. (vi). before the Full Court of Respondent No.3 06.10.2023, approved and affirmed the recommendation of the Vigilance Committee, thereby sanctioning the petitioner’s dismissal from service. (vi). the petitioner was dismissed from service, thereby terminating his tenure as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). (vii). in hand seeks consideration at hands of this Court. 6448-2024 (O&M) Upon the petitioner’s submission of reply to the charge sheet dated 14.07.2021, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to examine the matter. Inquiry Officer, vide her report dated 07.01.2023, rendered findings wherein Charges No. 1, 2, and 4 were held to be duly substantiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice communication dated 01.03.2023, accompanied by a copy of t report. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted reply dated 07.04.2023, wherein the petitioner challenged the veracity and legitimacy of the inquiry report, raising objections regarding its genuineness, procedural propriety, and evidentiary sufficiency. The matter was thereafter placed before the Vigilance Committee of Respondent No.3 – High Court, which in its meeting on 31.07.2023, considering the reply filed by the petitioner, resolved to accept the findings of the inquiry report dated 7.01.2023 and accordingly recommended the imposition of the major penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. Subsequently, the matter was submitted for consideration before the Full Court of Respondent No.3 06.10.2023, approved and affirmed the recommendation of the Vigilance Committee, thereby sanctioning the petitioner’s dismissal from service. The order dated 14.11.2023 was consequently issued, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, thereby terminating his tenure as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). It is in the backdrop of this factual milieu that the writ petition n hand seeks consideration at hands of this Court. 4 Upon the petitioner’s submission of reply to the charge sheet an Inquiry Officer was appointed to examine the matter. dated 07.01.2023, rendered findings wherein Charges No. 1, 2, and 4 were held to be duly substantiated against The petitioner was served with a show cause notice, through a communication dated 01.03.2023, accompanied by a copy of the inquiry report. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted reply dated 07.04.2023, wherein the petitioner challenged the veracity and legitimacy of the inquiry report, raising objections regarding its genuineness, procedural propriety, The matter was thereafter placed before the Vigilance High Court, which in its meeting on 31.07.2023, considering the reply filed by the petitioner, resolved to accept dated 7.01.2023 and accordingly recommended the imposition of the major penalty of dismissal from service Subsequently, the matter was submitted for consideration before the Full Court of Respondent No.3 – High Court, which on 06.10.2023, approved and affirmed the recommendation of the Vigilance Committee, thereby sanctioning the petitioner’s dismissal from service. he order dated 14.11.2023 was consequently issued, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, thereby terminating his tenure as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). It is in the backdrop of this factual milieu that the writ petition n hand seeks consideration at hands of this Court. Upon the petitioner’s submission of reply to the charge sheet an Inquiry Officer was appointed to examine the matter. dated 07.01.2023, rendered findings wherein Charges No. 1, 2, and 4 were held to be duly substantiated against through a he inquiry report. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted reply dated 07.04.2023, wherein the petitioner challenged the veracity and legitimacy of the inquiry report, raising objections regarding its genuineness, procedural propriety, The matter was thereafter placed before the Vigilance High Court, which in its meeting on 31.07.2023, considering the reply filed by the petitioner, resolved to accept dated 7.01.2023 and accordingly recommended the imposition of the major penalty of dismissal from service Subsequently, the matter was submitted for consideration High Court, which on 06.10.2023, approved and affirmed the recommendation of the Vigilance he order dated 14.11.2023 was consequently issued, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service, thereby terminating his tenure as It is in the backdrop of this factual milieu that the writ petition AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 3. Jindal, Senior Advocate discharging his judicial functions with utmost rectitude and impartial which incurred the displeasure of certain local advocates and litigants. It is asserted that, motivated by malice, false and frivolous complaints were engineered against the petitioner with the sole intent of tarnishing his reputation and maligning hi that there is no worthwhile material inquiry which may connect or hold the petitioner liable for any misconduct. It has been further urged by learned counsel report dated 07.01.2023, erroneously inferred misconduct on the petitioner’s part, despite the absence of cogent, probative and legally sustainable evidence on record. It is further argued that no substantive material exists to support the alleged misconduct, and that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse, arbitrary, and wholly unsustainable in law. It is urged that no reasonable person, acting judiciously and in accordance with law, could have arrived at the conclusions Learned counsel have further urged that the findings have been arrived at without proper appreciation of evidence and there are several contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which have gone unnotice officer. It has been argued that, presented before the Inquiry Officer, would unequivocally establish that the petitioner has been wrongfully implicated and that no act of misconduct can be legitimately attributed to him. On strength of these submissions, the grant of writ petition in hand is entreated for. 6448-2024 (O&M) Learned counsel for the petitioner Jindal, Senior Advocate; have contended that the petitioner had been discharging his judicial functions with utmost rectitude and impartial which incurred the displeasure of certain local advocates and litigants. It is asserted that, motivated by malice, false and frivolous complaints were engineered against the petitioner with the sole intent of tarnishing his reputation and maligning his judicial integrity. It has been further that there is no worthwhile material brought inquiry which may connect or hold the petitioner liable for any misconduct. It has been further urged by learned counsel report dated 07.01.2023, erroneously inferred misconduct on the petitioner’s part, despite the absence of cogent, probative and legally sustainable evidence on record. It is further argued that no substantive material exists to port the alleged misconduct, and that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse, arbitrary, and wholly unsustainable in law. It is urged that no reasonable person, acting judiciously and in accordance with law, could have arrived at the conclusions drawn in the inquiry report dated 07.01.2023. Learned counsel have further urged that the findings have been arrived at without proper appreciation of evidence and there are several contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which have gone unnotice . It has been argued that, a comprehensive evaluation of the material presented before the Inquiry Officer, would unequivocally establish that the petitioner has been wrongfully implicated and that no act of misconduct can imately attributed to him. On strength of these submissions, the grant of writ petition in hand is entreated for. 5 earned counsel for the petitioner; led by Shri Vijay Kumar have contended that the petitioner had been discharging his judicial functions with utmost rectitude and impartial which incurred the displeasure of certain local advocates and litigants. It is asserted that, motivated by malice, false and frivolous complaints were engineered against the petitioner with the sole intent of tarnishing his s judicial integrity. It has been further iterated brought on record during the course of inquiry which may connect or hold the petitioner liable for any misconduct. It has been further urged by learned counsel that the Inquiry Officer, in report dated 07.01.2023, erroneously inferred misconduct on the petitioner’s part, despite the absence of cogent, probative and legally sustainable evidence on record. It is further argued that no substantive material exists to port the alleged misconduct, and that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse, arbitrary, and wholly unsustainable in law. It is urged that no reasonable person, acting judiciously and in accordance with law, could have drawn in the inquiry report dated 07.01.2023. Learned counsel have further urged that the findings have been arrived at without proper appreciation of evidence and there are several contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which have gone unnoticed by the inquiry a comprehensive evaluation of the material presented before the Inquiry Officer, would unequivocally establish that the petitioner has been wrongfully implicated and that no act of misconduct can imately attributed to him. On strength of these submissions, the grant led by Shri Vijay Kumar have contended that the petitioner had been discharging his judicial functions with utmost rectitude and impartiality, which incurred the displeasure of certain local advocates and litigants. It is asserted that, motivated by malice, false and frivolous complaints were engineered against the petitioner with the sole intent of tarnishing his iterated on record during the course of inquiry which may connect or hold the petitioner liable for any misconduct. Inquiry Officer, in her report dated 07.01.2023, erroneously inferred misconduct on the petitioner’s part, despite the absence of cogent, probative and legally sustainable evidence on record. It is further argued that no substantive material exists to port the alleged misconduct, and that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse, arbitrary, and wholly unsustainable in law. It is urged that no reasonable person, acting judiciously and in accordance with law, could have drawn in the inquiry report dated 07.01.2023. Learned counsel have further urged that the findings have been arrived at without proper appreciation of evidence and there are several contradictions d by the inquiry a comprehensive evaluation of the material presented before the Inquiry Officer, would unequivocally establish that the petitioner has been wrongfully implicated and that no act of misconduct can imately attributed to him. On strength of these submissions, the grant AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 4. State has acted upon the recommendations made by the High Court and there i 4.1. & 3, through Sh Varun Nagpal, OSD (Litigation), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 3 while raising inquiry in question was carried out against the petitioner (herein) in accordance with Learned counsel has urged that all conce to put forth their case before the Inquiry Officer and the evidence brought on record therein clearly establishes the culpability of the petitioner (herein). It has been further the inquiry report in its correct p punishment of major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. the scope of jud limited and thus argued that, conducted in accordance with due process and arrived at based on sufficient material duly placed before the inquiry officer, this Court ought to exercise restraint conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer 4.2 No.4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner (on instructions from the petitioner) had sought for and was granted leave to 6448-2024 (O&M) Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the State has acted upon the recommendations made by the urt and there isno folly on its part Written reply has been furnished on behalf of respondent Nos.2 , through Sh Varun Nagpal, OSD (Litigation), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Learned counsel appearing for respondent while raising submissions in tandem with the inquiry in question was carried out against the petitioner (herein) in accordance with the prescribed procedure and there is no error therein. Learned counsel has urged that all concerned were afforded due opportunity to put forth their case before the Inquiry Officer and the evidence brought on record therein clearly establishes the culpability of the petitioner (herein). It has been further iterated that the Disciplinary Committee h the inquiry report in its correct perspective and it is thereafter the punishment of major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has further asserted that the scope of judicial interference in disciplinary proceedings is extremely and circumscribed by well-established legal principles. It thus argued that, as disciplinary proceedings in the instant case have been conducted in accordance with due process and arrived at based on sufficient material duly placed before the inquiry officer, this Court ought to exercise restraint and conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer The concerned Inquiry Officer was impleaded as respondent No.4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner (on instructions from the petitioner) had sought for and was granted leave to 6 Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the State has acted upon the recommendations made by the respondent no.3 folly on its part. eply has been furnished on behalf of respondent Nos.2 , through Sh Varun Nagpal, OSD (Litigation), High Court of Punjab and ounsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 & submissions in tandem with the same has urged that the inquiry in question was carried out against the petitioner (herein) in procedure and there is no error therein. rned were afforded due opportunity to put forth their case before the Inquiry Officer and the evidence brought on record therein clearly establishes the culpability of the petitioner (herein). It that the Disciplinary Committee has also considered spective and it is thereafter the punishment of major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed Ld. Counsel for the respondent has further asserted that icial interference in disciplinary proceedings is extremely established legal principles. It has been proceedings in the instant case have been conducted in accordance with due process and the finding of guilt has been arrived at based on sufficient material duly placed before the inquiry officer, and ought not to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer. iry Officer was impleaded as respondent No.4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner (on instructions from the petitioner) had sought for and was granted leave to delete the name Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the respondent no.3 — eply has been furnished on behalf of respondent Nos.2 , through Sh Varun Nagpal, OSD (Litigation), High Court of Punjab and 2 & urged that the inquiry in question was carried out against the petitioner (herein) in procedure and there is no error therein. rned were afforded due opportunity to put forth their case before the Inquiry Officer and the evidence brought on record therein clearly establishes the culpability of the petitioner (herein). It as also considered spective and it is thereafter the punishment of major penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed Ld. Counsel for the respondent has further asserted that icial interference in disciplinary proceedings is extremely has been proceedings in the instant case have been the finding of guilt has been arrived at based on sufficient material duly placed before the inquiry officer, ought not to interfere with the iry Officer was impleaded as respondent No.4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner (on instructions from the delete the name of AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 respondent No.4 from order dated 29.04.2024 earlier passed by this Court in this petition. 5. perused the 6. in hand is Vigilance & report of the resultant petitioner be reinstated in services. 7. herein to a Three Judge Bench judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as and others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, been held 6448-2024 (O&M) respondent No.4 from the array of parties, which factum is recorded order dated 29.04.2024 earlier passed by this Court in this petition. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. The prime issue that arises for consideration in the writ petition in hand is; as to whether the Inquiry Report dated 07.01.2023, Vigilance &Disciplinary Committee dated 31.07.2023 report of the Vigilance &Disciplinary Committee on 06.10.2023 and the resultant dismissal order dated 14.11.2023 petitioner be reinstated in services. Before proceeding to delve further, herein to a Three Judge Bench judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Deputy General Manager and others Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, been held as under:- “23. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional Courts under 136 of the Constitution of India is ci correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier exa Court in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan3 in Government of T.N. and Another Vs. A. Rajapandian4 further examined by the three Judge Bench of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others5 has been held as under: “13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be 7 the array of parties, which factum is recorded in the order dated 29.04.2024 earlier passed by this Court in this petition. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have The prime issue that arises for consideration in the writ petition Inquiry Report dated 07.01.2023, order of the Disciplinary Committee dated 31.07.2023, the acceptance of the Disciplinary Committee on 06.10.2023 and the order dated 14.11.2023 ought to be set aside & Before proceeding to delve further, it would be apposite to refer herein to a Three Judge Bench judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) (2021) 2 SCC 612,wherein it has 23. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by constitutional Courts under Article226 or Article 32 or Article of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an appellate authority which has been earlier examined by this State of Tamil Nadu Vs. T.V. Venugopalan3 and later Government of T.N. and Another Vs. A. Rajapandian4 and the three Judge Bench of this Court B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and Others5 wherein it “13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be in the We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have The prime issue that arises for consideration in the writ petition of the the acceptance of the Disciplinary Committee on 06.10.2023 and the &the it would be apposite to refer herein to a Three Judge Bench judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme (Appellate Authority) wherein it has 23. The power of judicial review in the matters of disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/appellate authorities discharged by Article rcumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an mined by this and later and the three Judge Bench of this Court wherein it “13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary enquiry, the strict proof of findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 6448-2024 (O&M) permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be i 24. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Vs. Mahesh Dahiya by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others, 2020 (9) SCC 471. 25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any mann inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of cert up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 26. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence an jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion. 27. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. 28. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the 8 permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union [(1964) 4 SCR 718] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” 24. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Vs. Mahesh Dahiya, 2017 (1) SCC 768 and recently Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar Vs. , 2020 (9) SCC 471. 25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 26. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion. 27. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence cord be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. 28. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the Union ] this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no 24. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board recently Pravin Kumar Vs. 25. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the of the decision- process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the er, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no iorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of 26. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged against the public servant, the Court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with;(iii) whether the findings or conclusions are d authority has power and 27. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence cord be sufficient for such exercise or else to 28. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only allegation against the AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 (ii) as State Bank of India held as under: 7.1. matters pertaining to departmental inquiry proceedings is narrow and circumscribed. extend to a re disciplinary authority. The writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is primarily process, ensuring that the findings recorded are not devoid of evidentiary 6448-2024 (O&M) delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true tha conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. 29. The Constitutional Court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where ther evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. More recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court i State Bank of India vs. A.G.D. Reddy, held as under:- “36. It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensur are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. recognized and reiterated in a long line of judgments of this Court. It is, therefore, indisputable that the scope of judicial review in matters pertaining to departmental inquiry proceedings is narrow and circumscribed. Such judicial review is not appellate in nature, nor does it extend to a re-evaluation of the merits of the decision rendered by the disciplinary authority. The writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is primarily confined to scrutinizing the legitimacy o process, ensuring that the findings recorded are not devoid of evidentiary 9 delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. Court while exercising its jurisdiction Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of malafides or perversity, i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental , the same has to be sustained.” More recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled A.G.D. Reddy, 2023 SCC Online (SC) 1064 36. It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. This lakshmanrekha has been recognized and reiterated in a long line of judgments of this Court. It is, therefore, indisputable that the scope of judicial review in matters pertaining to departmental inquiry proceedings is narrow and review is not appellate in nature, nor does it evaluation of the merits of the decision rendered by the disciplinary authority. The writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is confined to scrutinizing the legitimacy of the decision-making process, ensuring that the findings recorded are not devoid of evidentiary delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the t mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even Court while exercising its jurisdiction of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a o evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental n a judgment titled 2023 SCC Online (SC) 1064has against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the e that the findings are not bereft of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a appreciate the same and arrive at an This lakshmanrekha has been recognized and reiterated in a long line of judgments of this Court.” It is, therefore, indisputable that the scope of judicial review in matters pertaining to departmental inquiry proceedings is narrow and review is not appellate in nature, nor does it evaluation of the merits of the decision rendered by the disciplinary authority. The writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court is making process, ensuring that the findings recorded are not devoid of evidentiary AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 support, and that the inquiry has been conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice. This Court, therefore, ought not to engage in a reappraisal of facts or evidence, but must restrict itself to examining procedural propriety and the adjudicatory framework employed by the disciplinary authority.The scope of interference is limited to ensuring fairness in treatment rather than fairness in the ul Judicial intervention is warranted only in instances where the findings of the disciplinary authority are so manifestly perverse that no reasonable or prudent person could have arrived at such a conclusion. Similarly, if the decision suffers from a patent error apparent on the face of the record or is based on no evidence whatsoever, the writ jurisdiction of this Court may be exercised neither functions reassessment or re transcend the permissible bounds of judicial review in matters of departmental inquiries. 8. between the learned case, that the petitioner was afforded ample and adequate opportunities at every material stage of the disciplinary proceedings to present his defence and conte by the competent authority in adherence to the fundamental principles of natural justice, ensuring that all procedural safeguards were observed. A thorough perusal of the record establishes infirmity marred the inquiry proceedings nor any departure from the established due process 6448-2024 (O&M) support, and that the inquiry has been conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice. This Court, therefore, ought not to engage in a sal of facts or evidence, but must restrict itself to examining procedural propriety and the adjudicatory framework employed by the disciplinary authority.The scope of interference is limited to ensuring fairness in treatment rather than fairness in the ul Judicial intervention is warranted only in instances where the findings of the disciplinary authority are so manifestly perverse that no reasonable or prudent person could have arrived at such a conclusion. Similarly, if the sion suffers from a patent error apparent on the face of the record or is based on no evidence whatsoever, the writ jurisdiction of this Court may be exercised to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. However, this Court neither functions as an appellate forum nor can it entertain plea reassessment or re-appreciation of evidence, as such an exercise would transcend the permissible bounds of judicial review in matters of departmental inquiries. Reverting to the facts of the between the learned rival counsel, further substantiated by the record case, that the petitioner was afforded ample and adequate opportunities at every material stage of the disciplinary proceedings to present his defence and contest the allegations levelled against him. The inquiry was conducted by the competent authority in adherence to the fundamental principles of natural justice, ensuring that all procedural safeguards were observed. A thorough perusal of the record establishes infirmity marred the inquiry proceedings nor any departure from the established due process is discernible. 10 support, and that the inquiry has been conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice. This Court, therefore, ought not to engage in a sal of facts or evidence, but must restrict itself to examining procedural propriety and the adjudicatory framework employed by the disciplinary authority.The scope of interference is limited to ensuring fairness in treatment rather than fairness in the ultimate conclusion reached. Judicial intervention is warranted only in instances where the findings of the disciplinary authority are so manifestly perverse that no reasonable or prudent person could have arrived at such a conclusion. Similarly, if the sion suffers from a patent error apparent on the face of the record or is based on no evidence whatsoever, the writ jurisdiction of this Court may be to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. However, this Court forum nor can it entertain plea(s) for the appreciation of evidence, as such an exercise would transcend the permissible bounds of judicial review in matters of Reverting to the facts of the lisin hand; it is common ground counsel, further substantiated by the records of the case, that the petitioner was afforded ample and adequate opportunities at every material stage of the disciplinary proceedings to present his defence st the allegations levelled against him. The inquiry was conducted by the competent authority in adherence to the fundamental principles of natural justice, ensuring that all procedural safeguards were observed. A thorough perusal of the record establishes that no procedural irregularity or infirmity marred the inquiry proceedings nor any departure from the support, and that the inquiry has been conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice. This Court, therefore, ought not to engage in a sal of facts or evidence, but must restrict itself to examining procedural propriety and the adjudicatory framework employed by the disciplinary authority.The scope of interference is limited to ensuring timate conclusion reached. Judicial intervention is warranted only in instances where the findings of the disciplinary authority are so manifestly perverse that no reasonable or prudent person could have arrived at such a conclusion. Similarly, if the sion suffers from a patent error apparent on the face of the record or is based on no evidence whatsoever, the writ jurisdiction of this Court may be to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice. However, this Court for the appreciation of evidence, as such an exercise would transcend the permissible bounds of judicial review in matters of common ground of the case, that the petitioner was afforded ample and adequate opportunities at every material stage of the disciplinary proceedings to present his defence st the allegations levelled against him. The inquiry was conducted by the competent authority in adherence to the fundamental principles of natural justice, ensuring that all procedural safeguards were observed. A that no procedural irregularity or infirmity marred the inquiry proceedings nor any departure from the AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 9. upon the assertion that the Inquiry Officer h the evidence in its true and proper perspective, thereby reaching an erroneous conclusion regarding the petitioner’s culpability in the alleged misconduct recorded by the Inquiry Officer, particularly when examined against the backdrop of the entire evidentiary record, it becomes manifestly evident that the findings were arrived at only after a painstaking and exhaustive evaluation of the materials proceedings in question entailed the examination of multiple witnesses whose testimonies were recorded and scrutinized in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Inquiry Officer has examined several key witnesses Kumar (Process Server), Sh. Sandeep Singh (Process Server), Sh. Sumit Goel (Senior Assistant), Sh. Jasdeep Singh (Nodal Officer, Vodafone), Sh. Vipul Gupta (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel), Sh. Sh. Anuj Aggarwal (one of the complainants), and Sh. Vikrant Singh (Ahlmad) circumstantial knowledge pertinent to the allegations under inquiry, provided depositions th In addition to oral testimonies, relevant documentary evidence was diligently gathered, reviewed, and placed on record. The Inquiry Officer undertook a comprehensive scrutiny of the documentary material appraisal of both the oral and documentary evidence that the Inquiry Officer, vide its report dated 07.01.2023, recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to contend that the findings of the 6448-2024 (O&M) The gravamen of the petitioner’s contention upon the assertion that the Inquiry Officer h the evidence in its true and proper perspective, thereby reaching an erroneous conclusion regarding the petitioner’s culpability in the alleged misconduct. However, upon perusal nay orded by the Inquiry Officer, particularly when examined against the backdrop of the entire evidentiary record, it becomes manifestly evident that the findings were arrived at only after a painstaking and exhaustive evaluation of the materials brought forth during the inquiry proceedings in question entailed the examination of multiple witnesses whose testimonies were recorded and scrutinized in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Inquiry Officer has examined several key ; including Sh. Mohinder Singh Sidhwan (Advocate), Sh. Ravi Kumar (Process Server), Sh. Sandeep Singh (Process Server), Sh. Sumit Goel (Senior Assistant), Sh. Jasdeep Singh (Nodal Officer, Vodafone), Sh. Vipul Gupta (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel), Sh. Sh. Anuj Aggarwal (one of the complainants), and Sh. Vikrant Singh (Ahlmad); to name a few. Each of these witnesses, possessing direct or circumstantial knowledge pertinent to the allegations under inquiry, provided depositions that were assessed and weighed by the Inquiry Officer. In addition to oral testimonies, relevant documentary evidence was diligently gathered, reviewed, and placed on record. The Inquiry Officer undertook a comprehensive scrutiny of the documentary material appraisal of both the oral and documentary evidence that the Inquiry Officer, vide its report dated 07.01.2023, recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to contend that the findings of the 11 The gravamen of the petitioner’s contention, primarily hinges upon the assertion that the Inquiry Officer has failed to appreciate and assess the evidence in its true and proper perspective, thereby reaching an erroneous conclusion regarding the petitioner’s culpability in the alleged nay analytical scrutiny of the findings orded by the Inquiry Officer, particularly when examined against the backdrop of the entire evidentiary record, it becomes manifestly evident that the findings were arrived at only after a painstaking and exhaustive forth during the inquiry.The disciplinary proceedings in question entailed the examination of multiple witnesses whose testimonies were recorded and scrutinized in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Inquiry Officer has examined several key including Sh. Mohinder Singh Sidhwan (Advocate), Sh. Ravi Kumar (Process Server), Sh. Sandeep Singh (Process Server), Sh. Sumit Goel (Senior Assistant), Sh. Jasdeep Singh (Nodal Officer, Vodafone), Sh. Vipul Gupta (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel), Sh. Parminder Singh (Ahlmad), Sh. Anuj Aggarwal (one of the complainants), and Sh. Vikrant Singh Each of these witnesses, possessing direct or circumstantial knowledge pertinent to the allegations under inquiry, at were assessed and weighed by the Inquiry Officer. In addition to oral testimonies, relevant documentary evidence was diligently gathered, reviewed, and placed on record. The Inquiry Officer undertook a comprehensive scrutiny of the documentary material and it was only upon appraisal of both the oral and documentary evidence that the Inquiry Officer, vide its report dated 07.01.2023, recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to contend that the findings of the primarily hinges as failed to appreciate and assess the evidence in its true and proper perspective, thereby reaching an erroneous conclusion regarding the petitioner’s culpability in the alleged analytical scrutiny of the findings orded by the Inquiry Officer, particularly when examined against the backdrop of the entire evidentiary record, it becomes manifestly evident that the findings were arrived at only after a painstaking and exhaustive .The disciplinary proceedings in question entailed the examination of multiple witnesses whose testimonies were recorded and scrutinized in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The Inquiry Officer has examined several key including Sh. Mohinder Singh Sidhwan (Advocate), Sh. Ravi Kumar (Process Server), Sh. Sandeep Singh (Process Server), Sh. Sumit Goel (Senior Assistant), Sh. Jasdeep Singh (Nodal Officer, Vodafone), Sh. Parminder Singh (Ahlmad), Sh. Anuj Aggarwal (one of the complainants), and Sh. Vikrant Singh Each of these witnesses, possessing direct or circumstantial knowledge pertinent to the allegations under inquiry, at were assessed and weighed by the Inquiry Officer. In addition to oral testimonies, relevant documentary evidence was diligently gathered, reviewed, and placed on record. The Inquiry Officer undertook a and it was only upon appraisal of both the oral and documentary evidence that the Inquiry Officer, vide its report dated 07.01.2023, recorded a finding of guilt against the petitioner. Thus, it is not appropriate to contend that the findings of the AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 Inquiry Officer were devoid of evidentiary support or that the conclusion of guilt was based on mere conjecture and surmise. To the contrary, the record amply demonstrates that the petitioner was granted adequate opportunity to rebut the evidence marshaled agains defence. In view of the factual matrix of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner issued summons in criminal complaints filed on behalf of Pankaj Mittal and statutory provisions enshrined in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This fact assumes significance in light of the fact that the complainants were listed as Facebook friends of the petitioner, and records indicate telephonic communi Furthermore, the process server, Sh. Ravi Kumar, testified before the inquiry officer that, under verbal instructions and intimidation by the petitioner, he traveled to Nasik, Maharashtra, to serve the summon. This corroborated by mobile location records of the process server, Sh. Ravi Kumar. Considering these factor, it is evident that the inquiry officer’s imputation of misconduct to the petitioner is well any material on record 10. evidence adduced during a disciplinary proceeding falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority conducting such proceedings. The standard of proof required in such inquirie trial, where the principle of Rather, disciplinary proceedings adhere to the principle of of probabilities’ objective assessment of the evidence, the probability of misconduct 6448-2024 (O&M) Officer were devoid of evidentiary support or that the conclusion of guilt was based on mere conjecture and surmise. To the contrary, the record amply demonstrates that the petitioner was granted adequate opportunity to rebut the evidence marshaled against him and to adduce materials in his In view of the factual matrix of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner issued summons in criminal complaints filed on behalf of Pankaj Mittal and Sh. Vikas Mittal without adhering to the manda statutory provisions enshrined in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This fact assumes significance in light of the fact that the complainants were listed as Facebook friends of the petitioner, and records indicate telephonic communications between them and the petitioner. Furthermore, the process server, Sh. Ravi Kumar, testified before the inquiry officer that, under verbal instructions and intimidation by the petitioner, he traveled to Nasik, Maharashtra, to serve the summon. This corroborated by mobile location records of the process server, Sh. Ravi Kumar. Considering these factor, it is evident that the inquiry officer’s imputation of misconduct to the petitioner is well any material on record. It is trite law that the sufficiency, adequacy, or quality of evidence adduced during a disciplinary proceeding falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority conducting such proceedings. The standard of proof required in such inquirie trial, where the principle of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ Rather, disciplinary proceedings adhere to the principle of of probabilities’ wherein a finding of guilt may be sustained if, up objective assessment of the evidence, the probability of misconduct 12 Officer were devoid of evidentiary support or that the conclusion of guilt was based on mere conjecture and surmise. To the contrary, the record amply demonstrates that the petitioner was granted adequate opportunity to t him and to adduce materials in his In view of the factual matrix of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner issued summons in criminal complaints filed on behalf of . Vikas Mittal without adhering to the mandatory statutory provisions enshrined in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This fact assumes significance in light of the fact that the complainants were listed as Facebook friends of the petitioner, and records cations between them and the petitioner. Furthermore, the process server, Sh. Ravi Kumar, testified before the inquiry officer that, under verbal instructions and intimidation by the petitioner, he traveled to Nasik, Maharashtra, to serve the summon. This assertion is corroborated by mobile location records of the process server, Sh. Ravi Kumar. Considering these factor, it is evident that the inquiry officer’s imputation of misconduct to the petitioner is well-founded and not without law that the sufficiency, adequacy, or quality of evidence adduced during a disciplinary proceeding falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority conducting such proceedings. The standard of proof required in such inquiries is not akin to that in a criminal ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ is applicable. Rather, disciplinary proceedings adhere to the principle of ‘preponderance wherein a finding of guilt may be sustained if, upon an objective assessment of the evidence, the probability of misconduct Officer were devoid of evidentiary support or that the conclusion of guilt was based on mere conjecture and surmise. To the contrary, the record amply demonstrates that the petitioner was granted adequate opportunity to t him and to adduce materials in his In view of the factual matrix of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner issued summons in criminal complaints filed on behalf of Sh. tory statutory provisions enshrined in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This fact assumes significance in light of the fact that the complainants were listed as Facebook friends of the petitioner, and records cations between them and the petitioner. Furthermore, the process server, Sh. Ravi Kumar, testified before the inquiry officer that, under verbal instructions and intimidation by the petitioner, he assertion is corroborated by mobile location records of the process server, Sh. Ravi Kumar. Considering these factor, it is evident that the inquiry officer’s founded and not without law that the sufficiency, adequacy, or quality of evidence adduced during a disciplinary proceeding falls within the exclusive domain of the competent authority conducting such proceedings. The s is not akin to that in a criminal is applicable. ‘preponderance on an objective assessment of the evidence, the probability of misconduct AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 outweighs the probability of innocence. Thus, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, challenging the adequacy and sufficiency of the evidence relied upon to establish g outside the permissible scope of judicial review in the present writ petition. It is a settled canon of service jurisprudence exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consti as an appellate forum over the findings recorded in a duly conducted departmental inquiry. This Court is neither empowered nor obligated to undertake a re Inquiry Officer disciplinary authority, save in cases where the findings suffer from manifest perversity, patent illegality, or are rendered in complete absence of evidence. In the instant case, however, no such demonstrated by the petitioner that would in its plenary conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in its report dated 0 the most appropriate or whether a different inference could have been drawn from the evidence on record. 11. that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were co strictly in accordance with law, procedural due process was adhered to, and the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer’s findings vi thorough and detaile no cogent grounds have been made out to warrant judicial interference. The petitioner’s plea, which essentially invites this Court to reassess the evidence 6448-2024 (O&M) outweighs the probability of innocence. Thus, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, challenging the adequacy and sufficiency of the evidence relied upon to establish guilt, is legally untenable and falls entirely outside the permissible scope of judicial review in the present writ petition. settled canon of service jurisprudence exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Consti as an appellate forum over the findings recorded in a duly conducted departmental inquiry. This Court is neither empowered nor obligated to undertake a re-evaluation or reappraisal of the evidence presented before the Inquiry Officer nor can it substitute its own opinion for that of the disciplinary authority, save in cases where the findings suffer from manifest perversity, patent illegality, or are rendered in complete absence of evidence. In the instant case, however, no such accent demonstrated by the petitioner that would plenary writ jurisdiction. It is not for this court to assess whether the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in its report dated 0 the most appropriate or whether a different inference could have been drawn from the evidence on record. Ergo, in view of the foregoing discussion, it is abundantly clear that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were co strictly in accordance with law, procedural due process was adhered to, and the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer’s findings vide its report dated 07.01.2023, were rendered after a thorough and detailed examination of oral and documentary evidence, and no cogent grounds have been made out to warrant judicial interference. The petitioner’s plea, which essentially invites this Court to reassess the evidence 13 outweighs the probability of innocence. Thus, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, challenging the adequacy and sufficiency of the uilt, is legally untenable and falls entirely outside the permissible scope of judicial review in the present writ petition. settled canon of service jurisprudence that a writ court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not to act as an appellate forum over the findings recorded in a duly conducted departmental inquiry. This Court is neither empowered nor obligated to evaluation or reappraisal of the evidence presented before the nor can it substitute its own opinion for that of the disciplinary authority, save in cases where the findings suffer from manifest perversity, patent illegality, or are rendered in complete absence of evidence. accentuating circumstances have been demonstrated by the petitioner that would call for interference by this Court writ jurisdiction. It is not for this court to assess whether the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in its report dated 07.01.2023, is the most appropriate or whether a different inference could have been drawn , in view of the foregoing discussion, it is abundantly clear that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were conducted strictly in accordance with law, procedural due process was adhered to, and the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry its report dated 07.01.2023, were rendered after a d examination of oral and documentary evidence, and no cogent grounds have been made out to warrant judicial interference. The petitioner’s plea, which essentially invites this Court to reassess the evidence outweighs the probability of innocence. Thus, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, challenging the adequacy and sufficiency of the uilt, is legally untenable and falls entirely outside the permissible scope of judicial review in the present writ petition. that a writ court, while tution, is not to act as an appellate forum over the findings recorded in a duly conducted departmental inquiry. This Court is neither empowered nor obligated to evaluation or reappraisal of the evidence presented before the nor can it substitute its own opinion for that of the disciplinary authority, save in cases where the findings suffer from manifest perversity, patent illegality, or are rendered in complete absence of evidence. circumstances have been interference by this Court writ jurisdiction. It is not for this court to assess whether the 7.01.2023, is the most appropriate or whether a different inference could have been drawn , in view of the foregoing discussion, it is abundantly clear nducted strictly in accordance with law, procedural due process was adhered to, and the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry its report dated 07.01.2023, were rendered after a d examination of oral and documentary evidence, and no cogent grounds have been made out to warrant judicial interference. The petitioner’s plea, which essentially invites this Court to reassess the evidence AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-6448 and substitute its own conclusion for that of th the pale of permissible judicial review. the inquiry report dated by the Vigilance & Disciplinary Committee vide its order dated 31.07.2023 and acceptance of the recommendations of the Vigilance & Disciplinary Committee by the Hon’ble Full Court vide minutes of 21st meeting of the year 2023 held on 06.10.2023 and the consequent dismissal of services of the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2023 cannot be said to be bad in law. of the inquiry officer as also the consequent action(s) taken, is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference under this Court’s writ jurisdiction Thus, the petition in hand deserves dismissal. Decision 12. is dismissed order as to costs. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE March 24 Naveen/Ajay 6448-2024 (O&M) and substitute its own conclusion for that of th the pale of permissible judicial review. Thus the subsequent acceptance of the inquiry report dated by the Vigilance & Disciplinary Committee vide its order dated 31.07.2023 and acceptance of the recommendations of the e & Disciplinary Committee by the Hon’ble Full Court vide minutes meeting of the year 2023 held on 06.10.2023 and the consequent dismissal of services of the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2023 cannot be said to be bad in law. Consequently, the petitioner’s challenge to the findings of the inquiry officer as also the consequent action(s) taken, is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference under this Court’s writ jurisdiction the petition in hand deserves dismissal. In view of the preceding ratiocination, the writ petition in hand smissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. order as to costs. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 4, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 14 and substitute its own conclusion for that of the Inquiry Officer, is beyond Thus the subsequent acceptance of the inquiry report dated by the Vigilance & Disciplinary Committee vide its order dated 31.07.2023 and acceptance of the recommendations of the e & Disciplinary Committee by the Hon’ble Full Court vide minutes meeting of the year 2023 held on 06.10.2023 and the consequent dismissal of services of the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2023 cannot be petitioner’s challenge to the findings of the inquiry officer as also the consequent action(s) taken, is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference under this Court’s writ jurisdiction the petition in hand deserves dismissal. ratiocination, the writ petition in hand Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE Yes/No Yes/No e Inquiry Officer, is beyond Thus the subsequent acceptance of the inquiry report dated by the Vigilance & Disciplinary Committee vide its order dated 31.07.2023 and acceptance of the recommendations of the e & Disciplinary Committee by the Hon’ble Full Court vide minutes meeting of the year 2023 held on 06.10.2023 and the consequent dismissal of services of the petitioner vide order dated 14.11.2023 cannot be petitioner’s challenge to the findings of the inquiry officer as also the consequent action(s) taken, is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference under this Court’s writ jurisdiction. ratiocination, the writ petition in hand No AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.24 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document