IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Judicial review is not akin to adjudication of case on merits and adequacy or inadequacy of evidence.
(2) Conclusions of fact which are based upon evaluation and appreciation of evidence, when meticulously reached by authorities, should not be interfered with merely because court may have reached at a different conclusion.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

This appeal, which has been preferred by Central Industrial Security Force¹[For short, “CISF”.] and two others, takes exception to the judgment dated 16.12.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 13718 of 2004, whereby the High Court of Gujarat has allowed the writ petition preferred by Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey and directed his reinstatement in service with 50% back wages from the date of his removal.

2. Respondent No. 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey, who was working as a constable with the CISF, was posted at the Greenbelt Area of the IPCL Township, Vadodara, Gujarat, where he was charge-sheeted vide memorandum dated 28.10.2001 on allegations of misconduct, which allegations we shall refer to in some detail subsequently.

Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey having denied the allegations, Deputy Commandant - N.K. Bharadwaj was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, who vide his report dated 28.01.2002 held that the charges levelled against Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey stand proven. Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey made a representation, and thereby questioned the inquiry report and claimed that he should be exonerated of the charges. The disciplinary authority, however, vide order dated 23.02.2002, agreed that the charges were proved and penalty of removing Respondent No. 1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey from service was imposed. Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey had preferred an appeal that was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 08.05.2002. Revision petition filed by the Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey was rejected vide order dated 08.04.2003.

3. These orders, including the inquiry report, were challenged by Respondent No.1 – Santosh Kumar Pandey vide Special Civil Application No. 13718 of 2004, which, vide impugned judgment, has been allowed, as per the directions set out above.

4. The reasoning given by the High Court for allowing the Writ Petition is to be found in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment, which for convenience, are reproduced below:

“8. We have gone through the evidence came on record. Mahesh B. Chaudhry who is the complainant gave his statement on 27.10.2001 before the CISF Officer. In his examination, the complainant has narrated the aforesaid story, but in the cross examination, he had admitted that the petitioner has returned the watch and he has got his article back and he does not want to take any action against the petitioner. He has also admitted in the question put by the Inquiry Officer as regards to the illicit demand to spend some time with his fiancée as his fiancée has also seen the incident.

9. (X) ²[Identity suppressed to maintain privacy.] who is fiancée of complainant Mahesh B. Chaudhry has also been examined and she has clearly and categorically stated that she was little aware, but what was told to his fiancée Mahesh, she has not heard. Of course, she saw him giving watch to the petitioner.

10. Indisputably, on going through the entire evidence available on record, entire case against the petitioner rests only on the sole testimony of Mahesh B. Chaudhry-complainant. In our evaluation of evidence of the complainant, his evidence is also not consistent. As per his say, his fiancée has also seen the incident, but his fiancée has clearly stated before the Inquiry Officer that she has not seen the incident. Now, only question remains as regards snatching/taking away watch from the complainant Mahesh B. Chaudhry. In respect of the said allegation also, the evidence on record clearly reveals that watch was already returned and, therefore, even the complainant has given in writing to the official of CISF that his watch is already returned by the present petitioner and, therefore, he does not want to take any action against him and he withdrew the complaint.”

5. In our opinion the reasoning given by the High Court is faulty on both facts and law. To avoid prolixity, as there is a short issue that arises for consideration, we a