The High Court has the power to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer if they are not based on any evidence or are based on inadmissible evidence or there are errors of law apparent on the face of the record.

( 1 ) IN the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is assailing the order of punishment passed by the 2nd respondent dated: 7-5-1986 as modified by the 3rd respondent.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the case are that the petitioner was working as Asst. Executive officer (P. A. to the Secretary) Dharma prachar Parishad in Tirumala Tirupati devasthanams. Prior to the said post he worked as Superintendent in Sri venkateswara Canteen. During 1984-85, the petitioner worked as Parakamani Officer, tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams. While working in the said capacity, he was suspended on 3-2-1985 and subsequently the suspension was raised on 4-4-1985 pending enquiry. There-upon a charge sheet was issued alleging that on 28-1 -1985 in the afternoon when the process of final check and verification was incomplete, he left the parakamani place as a result of which some contents worth Rs. 317-05ps. were noticed. The petitioner submitted explanation denying the allegation made against him.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that after parakamani work was over, he had handed over the currency to the bank staff and after keeping the change bags and Peribadi boxes in Kanuka room and after instructing the store Keeper to direct Deepali to sweep the parakamani area to collect stray and left over articles. Since Deepali was not available he informed Jeeyangar s clerk and vigilance staff to get the area swept and went outside temple to attend calls of nature as he was on is legs from 1 p. m. onwards. After his return the area was swept and the articles collected were also handed over in Kanuka room. However, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry, recorded the statement of Shroff, jeeyangar clerk and Attender and vigilance guard was recorded. It is the case of the petitioner that all the witnesses stated that he left the place after informing the concerned staff at Parakamani place. But, however, the Enquiry Officer relying on the Video recording held the petitioner guilty of charges. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued and the punishment of stoppage of two periodical increments with cumulative effect was imposed by proceedings dated: 7-5-1986. Against the said punishment, an appeal was preferred to the Administrative Committee. However, the appellate committee reduced the punishment to that of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The review Petition was also dismissed by the government. There upon the present writ petition was filed assailing the punishment. The petitioner submits that the enquiry was held in gross violation of principles of natural justice and that the findings of the Enquiry officer are wholly perverse and the consequential punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent are liable to be set aside. The petitioner was retired from service on 30-11-1995.

( 4 ) THE Tirumalatirupati Devasthanam filed counter stating that the petitioner deliberately left the Parakamani place without ensuring that all the items in the parakamani place are completely swept and consigned to Stores. The Vigilance staff having noticed the petitioner (Parakamani officer) was not available on the place, got the area swept and collected certain left over items and kept them in sealed box. It is the case of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams that atleast some responsible person watching the place could have been kept. Therefore, the respondent submits that the finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. It is a case where the petitioner at about 5-30 p. m after completion of Parakamani work, left for nature call at about 5-30 p. m. and according to him he came back and got the area swept to collect the left over articles if any. Thus the Tirumalatirupati Devasthanams submits that the imposition of penalty is legal and valid,

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence in the enquiry and come to a different conclusion. He further su