Punjab-Haryana High CourtPardeep Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 19 October, 2023Author:Deepak SibalBench:Deepak SibalNeutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DB\n\n\n\n\nCWP-37381-2018                                                     1\n\n      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                   CWP-37381-2018\n                                   Date of reserved:-05.10.2023\n                                   Date of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023.\n\n\nPardeep Kumar                                              ...Petitioner.\n\n\n                         Versus\n\n\nUnion of India and others                                  ...Respondents.\n\n                         ***\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL\n       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR\n\n                         .......\n\nArgued by :Mr. Rohit Seth, Advocate for the petitioner.\n\n            Dr. Anand Bishnoi, Addl. Standing Counsel, U.T., Chandigarh\n            and Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Sr. Panel Counsel\n            for U.T., Chandigarh for respondents No.2 to 5.\n\n                         ***\n\nSUKHVINDER KAUR, J.Prayer in the instant writ petition is for the issuance of a writ in\n\nthe nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 20.11.2018\n\nvide which Original Application No.060/00938/2016 filed by the petitioner\n\nunderSection 19of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was dismissed\n\nby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for\n\nshort, "the Tribunal"). A further prayer has been made for quashing of\n\ncharge sheet dated 21.01.2013, Enquiry report dated 25.03.2013, order\n\ndated 02.07.2015 passed by Disciplinary Authority, order dated 03.09.2015\n\npassed by Appellate Authority, order dated 04/09.11.2015 passed by\n\n\n\n                                       1 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                     2Revisional Authority, being illegal, against facts, punitive, perverse,\n\narbitrary and in violation ofArticle 311of Constitution of India. Further\n\ndirection to the respondent has also been sought to grant all benefits to the\n\npetitioner as if no punishment order was ever passed against him, with\n\nconsequential benefits of arrears of pay and allowances with interest thereon\n\n@ 18% P.A. till realization of the payment.2.          Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner joined as Constable U.T.,\n\nPolice Chandigarh on 01.05.2011. During the intervening night of\n\n25/26.07.2012, the petitioner along with Constable Rajesh Kumar and\n\nvolunteer Dalel Singh was on night patrolling duty in Sector-20\n\nChandigarh. At about 2.00 A.M., on receiving wireless message ASI Balram\n\nSingh reached at Aroma Light Point and found ASI Gurdeep Singh\n\nalongwith one person namely Divesh Parkash Rana present there. Divesh\n\nParkash Rana alleged that while he went to drop his friend Kavita Katoch at\n\nher PG accommodation at Sector-20, Chandigarh, they were stopped and\n\nharassed by a police patrolling party in Sector-20 and the police party took\n\nRs.300/- from him. As his friend was very scared and started weeping, he\n\nreported to the PCR vehicle stationed at Aroma Light Point, Sector-22.\n\nThereafter, he alongwith the police party were taken to police station\n\nSector-19 and Rs.300/- were returned to Divesh Parkash Rana.\n\nDepartmental Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and Constable\n\nRajesh Kumar.Summary of allegations dated 24.09.2012 was issued by the\n\nrespondents levelling therein allegation of harassing the complainant and\n\ntaking Rs.300/- from him, which was followed by Charge-Sheet dated\n\n21.01.2013, to which reply was submitted by the petitioner by denying the\n\n\n\n                                     2 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                     3allegations. Enquiry proceedings were completed vide Inquiry Report dated\n\n25.03.2013 proving the charges against the petitioner as well as Rajesh\n\nKumar. Thereafter, while agreeing with the findings of Inquiry Officer show\n\ncause notice dated 02.07.2013 was issued by the disciplinary authority.\n\nDisciplinary authority passed order dated 02.07.2015, vide which\n\npunishment of stoppage of fifteen annual increments with permanent effect\n\nwas imposed upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated\n\n02.07.2015, petitioner preferred an appeal dated 28.07.2015 under Rule\n\n16.29 of Punjab Police Rules, however, the said appeal was rejected by the\n\nappellate authority vide order dated 02.09.2015 with modification in the\n\npunishment of stoppage of ten annual increments with permanent effect.\n\nPetitioner filed revision petition under Rule 16.32 of Punjab Police Rules,\n\nwhich was also rejected by the revisional authority, vide order dated\n\n04.11.2015. The mercy petition dated 01.12.2015 filed by petitioner was\n\nalso rejected by Home Secretary, vide order dated 19.02.2016.Challenging     the   charge-sheet     and    punishment        orders\n\nculminating therefrom, petitioner filed O.A. No.060/00938/2016 before the\n\nTribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the above referred Original Application,\n\nvide impugned order dated 20.11.2018, resulting in filing of present writ\n\npetition. In the writ petition it has been alleged that the impugned order has\n\nbeen passed by ignoring the illegalities and irregularities committed by the\n\ndepartmental authorities and the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the issue\n\nin the right perspective, in the light of the fact that findings of Enquiry\n\nOfficer proving the charge sheet against the petitioner are perverse. The\n\nimpugned order dated 20.11.2018 is erroneous, against the facts and has\n\nbeen passed without appreciating the law and evidence on record and is\n\n\n\n                                     3 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                     4liable to be set aside on the following grounds:-(a)    Charge-sheet did not disclose whether proceedings were\n\n            initiated for minor or major penalty.(b)    Petitioner who had rendered service for one year only,\n\n            was put on duty alongwith Constable Rajesh Kumar, who had\n\n            19 bad entries in service record of 21 years. Thus, any person\n\n            deployed on duty was prone to suffer on account of misconduct\n\n            of a history sheeter and therefore, petitioner should not have\n\n            been deputed with such a person on public duty.(c)    All witnesses including complainant, ASI Balram Singh,\n\n            SHO Harjit Kaur and Volunteer Dalel Singh deposed against\n\n            Constable Rajesh Kumar affirming that he had demanded and\n\n            took money and misbehaved with complainant and none of the\n\n            said witnesses uttered a single word against the petitioner.\n\n            Therefore, petitioner could not have been granted equal\n\n            punishment as given to Rajesh Kumar.(d)    The affidavit dated 26.10.2012 submitted by the\n\n            petitioner during the enquiry to drop proceedings against him\n\n            and affirming charges against Constable Rajesh Kumar and the\n\n            other documents were totally overlooked and charge was\n\n            proved against the petitioner in a perverse manner.(e)    Learned Tribunal declared the petitioner as co-accused\n\n            holding him equally responsible as he was on duty with\n\n            Constable Rajesh Kumar as a team. But third Volunteer Dalel\n\n            Singh was not proceeded against despite the fact that he was\n\n            also in the police party at the relevant time.4 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                        5(f)     Impugned orders are blatantly illegal in view of the law\n\n             laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case where there is\n\n             no evidence on record to prove the charge the findings are\n\n             perverse.(g)     Authorities      have        mechanically      rejected       the\n\n             representation, appeal and revision of petitioner without\n\n             application of mind.The petitioner prayed for the relief as detailed in para No.17 of\n\nthe writ petition.3.           In their short reply filed by respondents No.1 to 5, it has been\n\nalleged that with regard to the incident in question, complainant Divesh\n\nParkash Rana made a complaint and after considering the grave misconduct\n\non the part of petitioner, a regular departmental enquiry was ordered, vide\n\norder dated 12.09.2012. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding\n\nthe petitioner and Constable Rajesh Kumar guilty of charges. Consequently,\n\nshow cause notice dated 02.07.2013 was served upon the petitioner\n\nproposing the punishment of dismissal from service. After considering the\n\nreply submitted by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of\n\nhearing, the Disciplinary Authority i.e. S.S.P., U.T., Chandigarh, awarded\n\npunishment of stoppage of 15 annual increments with permanent effect,\n\nvide order dated 02.07.2015. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before\n\nDeputy Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, under Rule 16.29 of\n\nPunjab Police Rules, as applicable to Chandigarh, was partly accepted by\n\nthe appellate authority, vide order dated 02.09.2015 and order dated\n\n02.07.2015 granting a punishment of stoppage of 15 annual increments with\n\npermanent effect was modified to the extent of stoppage of 10 annual\n\n\n\n                                        5 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                      6increments with permanent effect.Thereafter, assailing the order of the appellate authority, the\n\npetitioner preferred a revision petition under Rules 16.32 of Punjab Police\n\nRules, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.11.2015. Feeling\n\ndissatisfied, petitioner filed a Mercy Petition, which was also dismissed by\n\nthe Home Secretary, Chandigarh, vide order dated 19.02.2016.Thereafter, petitioner approached the Tribunal, by preferring\n\nOriginal Application, challenging charge sheet, enquiry report, show cause\n\nnotice, orders of disciplinary authority, appellate authority, revisional\n\nauthority and the Home Secretary. A short reply was filed to the Original\n\nApplication by the respondents. After hearing counsel for the parties, vide\n\norder dated 20.11.2018, the Original Application was dismissed.Respondents submitted that under the orders of the competent\n\nauthority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, a regular\n\ndepartmental enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer after conducing\n\na full fledged enquiry proved the charges of misconduct against the\n\npetitioner. Charge sheet was issued to petitioner with the proposed action of\n\ndismissal from service, whereas punishment of stoppage of 15 annual\n\nincrements with permanent effect was imposed upon him. However, the said\n\npunishment was modified to the extent of stoppage of 10 annual increments\n\nwith permanent effect. It has been averred that misconduct has been duly\n\nproved against the petitioner and as such imposition of punishment is\n\njustified. The act and conduct of petitioner tantamounts to grave\n\nmisconduct, dereliction in duty and unbecoming of a police officer being a\n\nmember of disciplined force. Thus, petitioner is not entitled to any relief and\n\nas such the instant petition be dismissed.6 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                     74.          Counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been\n\nperused with their able assistance.5.          The first contention canvassed by counsel for the petitioner is\n\nthat at that point of time petitioner had rendered only one year of service,\n\nwhen he was put on duty along with Constable Rajesh Kumar, who had 19\n\nbad entries in the service record of 21 years, so any person deployed on duty\n\nalong with him was prone to suffer on account of his misconduct being a\n\nhistory sheeter and authorities should not have put such a person on public\n\nduty. All the witnesses during the enquiry, including the complainant, DP\n\nRana, ASI Balram Singh, who got the first hand information from the\n\ncomplainant, SHO Harjit Kaur, the third incumbent deployed on duty with\n\nthe petitioner namely Volunteer Dalel Singh had deposed against Constable\n\nRajesh Kumar that only he had demanded and taken money and had\n\nmisbehaved with the complainant, but none of the witnesses deposed\n\nagainst the petitioner. So the same parameters were not to be adopted by the\n\nauthority, to punish the petitioner and Constable Rajesh Kumar. But all\n\nthese depositions have been totally overlooked while proving the charge\n\nagainst the petitioner in a perverse manner. He has further contended that\n\nthe Tribunal has wrongly declared the petitioner as co-accused by stating\n\nthat he was equally responsible since he was on duty alongwith Constable\n\nRajesh Kumar as a team. It has also been submitted that the third Volunteer\n\nDalel Singh, who was also alongwith them at the relevant time, had not\n\nbeen proceeded against. He has further argued that the report of the Enquiry\n\nOfficer is not based upon evidence on record and the authorities have\n\nmechanically rejected the representation, appeal and revision of the\n\npetitioner without application of mind. While relying upon Union of India\n\n\n\n                                      7 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                      8Vs. K.A. Kittu and others, 2001, SCC (LO& S) 8;Kuldeep Singh Vs. The\n\nCommissioner of Police and others, JT 1998 (8) SC 603 and Bhagat Ram\n\nVs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1983 SCC (L&S) 342, it has been\n\ncontended that the Court can interfere in conclusions if there was no\n\nevidence or where findings recorded are such which could not have been\n\nreached by an ordinary prudent man or are perverse. He has contended that\n\nthe impugned orders are blatantly illegal in the light of aforesaid law settled\n\nby Hon'ble Supreme Court and prayed that the present writ petition may be\n\nallowed and consequently all the impugned orders be set aside.6.          Per contra, counsel for the respondents has contended that\n\nunder the orders of competent authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police,\n\nChandigarh, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry\n\nOfficer after conducting the full-fledged enquiry by following proper\n\nprocedure held that charges of misconduct against the petitioner are proved.\n\nIn view of the same charge sheet was issued to the petitioner with a\n\npurposed action of dismissal from the service, whereas a punishment of\n\nstoppage of 15 increments with permanent effect was imposed. The appeal\n\nfiled by the petitioner was rejected while modifying punishment of stoppage\n\nof 10 annual increments with permanent effect. The revision petition filed\n\nby the petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority was dismissed\n\nand the mercy petition filed before the Home Secretary, Chandigarh, was\n\nalso dismissed. The Original application filed before the Tribunal,\n\nchallenging the aforesaid orders has also been dismissed. He has urged that\n\nas the misconduct was duly proved against the petitioner so the imposition\n\nof punishment is justified. The act and conduct on the part of the petitioner\n\ntantamounts to grave misconduct, dereliction in duty and unbecoming of\n\n\n\n                                      8 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                      9police officer, being a member of disciplined force. He has contended that\n\nthe orders passed by the authorities below and order passed by the Tribunal\n\nare justified and have been passed in its right perspective and the present\n\nwrit petition is liable to be dismissed.7.           The entire edifice of the case of the petitioner is that it was only\n\nConstable Rajesh Kumar who had taken money from Davesh Rana and had\n\nmisbehaved with the couple and later on he returned said sum of Rs.300/-\n\nwhich had been taken by him from Davesh Rana. But the Tribunal has\n\nrightly held that the petitioner and Constable Rajesh Kumar were doing duty\n\ntogether, so the complaint made by Davesh Rana regarding misbehavior and\n\nillegal gratification, was also to be taken as a complaint qua the petitioner\n\nalso. It has been rightly observed, that this argument of the petitioner that he\n\nknew of the demand made for money, but had no alternative except to abide\n\nby the order of his senior, does not absolve him of being a co-participant in\n\nthe harassment and demand of illegal gratification from a member of the\n\npublic. Being a member of a disciplined force, he was duty bound to\n\nmaintain integrity at every step of his service, even when he was having\n\nonly one year service at the relevant time.8.InUnion of India and others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, 2015 AIR\n\n(Supreme Court) 545, the High Court set aside the order of the Central\n\nAdministrative Tribunal, interfered with even findings of the Enquiry\n\nOfficer, set aside the punishment and directed reinstatement with backwages\n\nand all the service benefits. The Union of India aggrieved against the same\n\nwent to Supreme Court. The relevant finding given by the Hon'ble Apex\n\nCourt in this context is extracted below:-"Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to\n             note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in9 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                  10the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence\n         before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was\n         accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed\n         by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary\n         proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second\n         court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers\n         under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not\n         venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court\n         can only see whether:a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;\n         b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in\n         that behalf;c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in\n         conducting the proceedings;d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching at a\n         fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the\n         evidence and merits of the case;e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by\n         irrelevant or extraneous considerations;\n         f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary\n         and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have\n         arrived at such conclusion;g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit\n         the admissible and material evidence;h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted\n         inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;\n         i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High\n         Court shall not:(i). re-appreciate the evidence;(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the\n         same has been conducted in accordance with law;(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;10 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                     11(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings\n            can be based.(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to\n            be;(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks\n            its conscience."In many subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court again\n\nthese principles have been consistently followed and it has been held that\n\nwhile re-appreciating evidence, High Court cannot act as an Appellate\n\nAuthority, in the disciplinary proceedings.9.InState of Karnataka and another Vs. N. Gangaraj, 2020 (2)\n\nS.C.T. 170, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-"The Disciplinary Authority has taken into consideration\n\n            the evidence led before the IO to return a finding that the\n\n            charges levelled against the respondent stand proved.We find that the interference in the order of punishment\n\n            by the Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court suffers from\n\n            patent error. The power of judicial review is confined to the\n\n            decision-making process. The power of judicial review\n\n            conferred on the constitutional court or on the Tribunal is not\n\n            that of an appellate authority."10.In State of Karnataka and another case (supra) the Hon'ble\n\nApex Courtplaced reliance upona three Judge Bench judgment inState of\n\nAndhra Pradesh and others Vs. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 Sc, 1723,\n\nwherein it was held that "High Court is not a Court of appeal over the\n\ndecision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public\n\nservant. It is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an\n\nauthority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure\n\n\n                                    11 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                     12prescribed in that behalf and whether the rules of natural justice are not\n\nviolated".11.          Again a three Judge Bench judgment in caseB.C. Chaturvedi\n\nVs. Union of India and others(1995) 6 SCC 749, held that "power of\n\njudicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner\n\nin which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure\n\nthat the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the\n\nconclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of\n\nthe court. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as\n\nan appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own\n\nindependent findings on the evidence".12.          Now coming to the present case, a regular departmental\n\nenquiry was ordered against the petitioner and Constable Rajesh Kumar.\n\nEnquiry Officer held the petitioner and Constable Rajesh Kumar guilty of\n\nthe charges. While agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, S.S.P.\n\nChandigarh served show cause notice proposing punishment of dismissal\n\nfrom service. Then S.S.P. (Security) being the disciplinary authority of the\n\napplicant, imposed punishment of stoppage of 15 annual increments with\n\npermanent effect. The petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector\n\nGeneral of Police and the punishment was reduced to stoppage of 10 annual\n\nincrements with permanent effect. The Revisional Authority also upheld the\n\npunishment of the Appellate Authority. It has been held by the Enquiry\n\nOfficer and other authorities that conduct of petitioner reflected lack of\n\nintegrity. This view has also been endorsed by the Tribunal.13.          Thus, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner was afforded\n\nsufficient opportunities to present his case in the defence. The perusal of\n\n\n\n                                    12 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                     13order dated 03.09.2015 of the Appellate Authority,              Deputy Inspector\n\nGeneral of Police, Chandigarh, reveals that it has been specifically\n\nmentioned therein that "the appellant has been afforded ample and\n\nsubstantial opportunity to present his case in defence. No procedural\n\nirregularities have been found in the conduct of enquiry and the findings as\n\nwell as punishment orders stands supported and substantiated by the\n\nevidence on record. There has been full compliance with the principles of\n\nnatural justice, equity and fair play while dealing with him departmentally.\n\nThere was no infraction of any rule while conducting departmental\n\nenquiry." The Tribunal has rightly observed that thus the Appellate\n\nAuthority was convinced that the no procedural irregularities were\n\ncommitted during conducting of enquiry and findings of the department\n\nwere supported and substantiated by the evidence which was produced\n\nduring the enquiry and there was full compliance of principles of natural\n\njustice, equity and fair play in the department proceedings.14.         The present case cannot be treated as a case of no evidence qua\n\nappellant-Pardeep Kumar. In the enquiry report a reference has been made\n\nto statement of Kavita, wherein she identified both C-Pardeep Kumar and\n\nC-Rajesh Kumar as those two persons who alongwith another police\n\npersonnel had harassed her and misbehaved with her on that night. The\n\nTribunal has rightly held that an ordinary and prudent man could come to\n\nconclusion that when put on duty as a team, the team is responsible for the\n\nconsequences of the incident or the complaint raised by a public member on\n\nany action by the team. The evidence on record would show that the\n\napplicant was working as a team with Constable Rajesh Kumar and in the\n\nevent of demanding illegal gratification or harassment, he would be equally\n\n\n\n                                    13 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                     14responsible for the action of the team. The Tribunal has further rightly held\n\nthat the attempt of petitioner to disassociate himself from the event, when\n\nhe was a member of the patrolling party appears to be a poor defence and\n\nnot substantiated in the inquiry proceedings.15.         It has also been rightly observed by the Tribunal that a perusal\n\nof the allegations proved and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner will\n\nshow, that the same is not excessive and it cannot be said that it pricks the\n\nconscience of a prudent man, considering the fact that a protector of law\n\nchose to violate the law himself, by demanding illegal gratification and\n\ncausing harassment.16.         So when the enquiry has been held according to the prescribed\n\nprocedure, there was no violation of principles of natural justice in\n\nconducting the proceedings and there is no material regarding mala fide on\n\nthe part of the authorities and the punishment imposed is not excessive,\n\nthen no interference in the impugned orders is required by this Court.17.         So far as case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is\n\nconcerned, the same is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. In\n\nK.A. Kittu's case (supra) CAT while exercising powers of judicial review\n\nheld, that there were contradictory findings of the Enquiry Officer; motive\n\nwas based on 'no evidence' and there was no evidence at all regarding\n\nsuspicion and during the period of respondent's posting there was no felling\n\nof the trees and no loss of revenue.18.InKuldeep Singh's case (supra) the original complainants were\n\nnot examined and blame for their non-availability was laid on the appellant,\n\ndespite the fact that he was also under suspension. It was held that there\n\nwas no basis or material on record upon which Enquiry Officer relied upon\n\n\n\n                                       14 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DBCWP-37381-2018                                                      15to come to conclusion that the appellant was responsible for their\n\ndisappearance.19.          In Bhagat Ram's case (supra) the appellant was not afforded a\n\nreasonable opportunity to defend himself and accordingly the enquiry and\n\nconsequential order of removal from service were vitiated.20.          As such, the case law cited by learned counsel for the\n\npetitioner is of no help to the petitioner.21.          Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is\n\naccordingly dismissed.22.          All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.(DEEPAK SIBAL)\n                                                      JUDGE\n\n\n\n                                                 (SUKHVINDER KAUR)\n                                                       JUDGE\n19.10.2023\nKomal\n\n\n             Whether speaking/reasoned?          :   Yes/ No\n\n             Whether reportable?                 :   Yes/ No\n\n\n\n\n                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137380-DB\n\n                                      15 of 15::: Downloaded on - 21-10-2023 04:37:23 :::