1 2025:CGHC:59905-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 907 of 2025 Surendra Shrivastava S/o Late Shri Vikram Lal Shrivastava Aged About 64 Years Retired T.I. Saraswati Nagar, Raipur R/o Civil Line Durg Quarter No. 36/95 Tahsil And District Durg C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department Ministry, Atal Nagar, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhavan, Ps Rakhi, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Inspector General Of Police Durg Range, Durg, 31 Bunglow, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.11 11:00:47 +0530 2 10.12.2025 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 6031 of 2019 by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The present writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ appeal and to quash order of Single Judge and to quash punishment imposed by respondent no. 1 & 2 imposing punishment of withholding of one cumulative effect” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 18-7-2015 at about 22.59 hours in night, one Santosh Chandrakar was murdered in Durg, for which Crime No. 291/2015 for offence under Section 302/34 was registered at PS Mohannagar. The appellant was Investigating Officer of the case. In trial, the accused persons were acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC by the learned Session Judge, Durg/trial Court, giving them benefit of doubt. Departmental enquiry was conducted against the appellant on the charge that " थाना ्ቚभारी जै से महत्वपू्ቓ एव जिजैम्मदारी पूदा पूरी रीहते हुये थाना महना नागरी के अपूरीध ्ቅमके-291/15 धरी 302, 34 भादाविव के# लापूरीवह पूवके विववचना केरी आरीविपूये' के दाषम)ሹኌ+ते के अवसेरी ्ቚदाना केरी अपूना केते्ቤ के ्ቚविते उदासेनाते ्ቚदाቦኌ/0ते केरी पू)लिलासे रीग)ला/ना के पू री-64 के उपू पू री (02) के उल्लाघना केरीना।" In 3 the departmental enquiry, the charge against the appellant was found proved by the Inquiring officer, on the basis of which, the Disciplinary Authority/Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, Durg, imposed penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect dated 3-5-2018. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 3-5-2018 was also rejected by the respondent No. 2/ Director General of Police, Raipur (CG), vide order dated 16-5-2019 against which, writ petition was preferred by the appellant before learned Single Judge which was also dismissed, thus this appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 13. Perusal of the law enunciated by the Apex Court, shows that, unless there is a ground of perversity or finding being contrary to the evidence on record or there being technical flaw in conducting of departmental enquiry or any other grounds, as has been settled by the Apex Court in afore-cited cases, the Court should be slow in interfering with such finding, which are based on evidence brought on record. 14. Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, in 4 instant case, the appellant has not alleged and not brought any material facts on the record that Enquiry Officer while conducting enquiry has not afforded due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or any other ground as has been settled by the Apex Court to be entertained by the High Court in exercising the power of judicial review. Rather, the enquiry was initiated because of mistake committed by the petitioner in investigation, due to which, the accused have been acquitted in a criminal case. Hence, the same is not liable to be interfered with by the writ court. 15. It is also pertinent to mention here that in a departmental enquiry, the standard of proof, required to prove the charges is that of preponderance of probability. Unlike in a criminal case, where charges has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the findings of the Enquiry Officer can be on the subjective satisfaction of the authority based on evidence and material brought on record before the Enquiry Officer. 16. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order (Annexure P-2) dated 3-5-2018 passed by the respondent No. 3 and order (Annexure P-1) dated 16-5-2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 in appeal imposing penalty of 5 withholding one increment with cumulative effect, against the petitioner. The instant writ petition being devoid of substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been penalized by withholding one increment with cumulative effect, despite the absence of any substantive evidence. It is further contended that the appellate authority also failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, which does not support the case of the department. Counsel submits that in ST No. 128/2015, the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court as the witnesses turned hostile. Despite this, the appellant has been held guilty of negligence in the departmental enquiry, which is perverse and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the appellant was the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 291/2015 registered at Police Station Mohannagar, Durg for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. It is contended that the appellant was found negligent in the course of investigation as he failed to collect relevant circumstantial evidence, did not record the statements of the family members of the deceased, and also did not ensure 6 matching and cross-checking of blood samples found on incriminating articles through the FSL. Consequently, after conducting a due departmental enquiry, the appellant was rightly penalized with withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. Learned State Counsel further submits that it is a settled proposition of law that in departmental enquiry proceedings, the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, ought not to interfere as an appellate authority unless there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, which is not reflected in the present case. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. K.S. Viswanath, (2022) 15 SCC 190. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. Perusal of the records shows that the grounds raised by the appellant to assail the impugned orders indicate that they neither pertain to any technical aspect nor do they allege any procedural infirmity in the conduct of the departmental enquiry. The appellant’s challenge is essentially premised on the assertions that he had properly investigated the crime in question, that he had acted in accordance with the directions of his superior authorities, that the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities failed to correctly appreciate the evidence on record, and that the accused 7 persons were acquitted in the criminal case under Section 302/34 IPC owing to the witnesses having turned hostile. In essence, therefore, the appellant seeks to question the merits of the departmental enquiry on the ground of improper appreciation of evidence. However, such re-appreciation of evidence by this Court is impermissible in view of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In a catena of judgments, the Apex Court has consistently held that in departmental enquiry proceedings, the High Court exercises a limited scope of judicial review and cannot sit as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. 9. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and re-assess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiry. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether Enquiry Officer / Disciplinary Authority acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary 8 matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. 10. Applying the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, we find no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority, or the learned Single Judge. The record clearly reflects that the enquiry was conducted by affording full opportunity of participation to the appellant, and no violation of the principles of natural justice or statutory procedure has been demonstrated. The challenge raised by the appellant is essentially directed towards the appreciation of evidence and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which is impermissible within the limited scope of judicial review. 11. In State Bank of India v. K.S. Viswanath, (2022) 15 SCC 190, the Supreme Court has reiterated that courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot sit as an appellate authority over departmental proceedings and cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Apex Court in number of cases has held that the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence cannot be questioned if the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority is supported by some evidence on record. 9 12. In the present case, the findings of negligence, failure to collect crucial circumstantial evidence, non-recording of statements of key witnesses, and failure to send incriminating articles for FSL analysis are all founded upon material brought during the enquiry. The appellant’s reliance on the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case is also misplaced, in view of the consistent legal position that the standard of proof in departmental proceedings is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as reaffirmed in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 4 SCC 618 and Southern Railway Officers Association v. Union of India, (2010) 7 SCC 471. Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse or unsupported by material. We, thus, find no illegality, infirmity, or perversity warranting interference. 13. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti