P. B. Bajanthri, J. – In the present L.P.A., the appellant assailed the order dated 15.01.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8328 of 2017.

2. The appellant while working as Executive Engineer in Samastipur Division, an FIR No.7 of 2013 was registered for the offences under Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988, in particularly, sub-Section 2 of Section 13 read with sub-Section 1 (e) of section 13. Parallely, departmental inquiry was initiated on the alleged allegation of disproportionate to the known source of income. On these allegations, he was placed under suspension on 06.12.2013, charge memo was issued. In the charge memo, list of documents have been cited as No.1, 2 and 3. There are no list of witnesses to adduce evidence on behalf of author of those documents. In other words, it is a case of no evidence or perverse evidence for the reasons that certain documents have been taken note of and proceeded to conclude the inquiry and imposition of penalty of dismissal from service on 08.08.2016.

3. Learned Single Judge on page nos. 19 to 30 of the order dated 15.01.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8328 of 2017 held as under: –

“....Third plea has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during enquiry, no witness has been examined to prove the charge on the basis of documentary evidence but, the Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report, found the charges have been proved against the petitioner which is contrary to the view expressed in two judgments and has placed reliance, firstly in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in 2010 (2) SCC 772.

The scope of judicial review has been deliberated by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time, its contour and scope has been limited to the extent that the writ court will not act as a court of appeal but, will only see that following elements while testing the decision of quasi-judicial authority dealing with the departmental proceeding matter as to whether the delinquent has been granted fair treatment during departmental proceeding in terms of natural justice as well as to see whether some material are available for arriving to a finding of guilt by the Disciplinary Authority and the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority should not be perverse, as no reasonable person could have arrived to such a finding and the findings are against the weight of evidence, the facts which were relevant for consideration having been left out and the fact which were not required to be taken has been taken into consideration, has been deliberated that Court will not ensure that the conclusion which the authority has arrived is necessarily correct in the eye of law and also to ensure that the competent authority has followed the rule of natural justice and the findings of the Enquiry Officer must be based on some evidence. Reliance can be placed to the judgment in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1996 SC 484, paragraph nos. 12 & 13 being relevant are quoted herein below: –

“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of