The main legal point established is the limited scope of interference in departmental inquiries by the court, which can only be done in specific circumstances such as violation of principles of natural justice and fair play or findings based on no evidence or being perverse.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present appeal is arising out of judgment dated 22.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 8335/2017 titled Sunil Kumar Saxena Vs. Export Inspection Council, dismissing the writ petition against the order of removal dated 02.11.2015, inflicted by way of punishment by the Competent Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers conferred under the Export Inspection Agency Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1978 (Rules of 1978). The appellant has also challenged the order dated 14.02.2017, passed by the Appellate Authority.

2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appellant before this Court was appointed on 25.01.1980 to the post of Peon in the services of Export Inspection Council. On 26.02.2012, an incident took place involving a minor scuffle between Mr. Deepak Shekhar and Mr. Praveen Sakhuja. On account of a minor scuffle between the aforesaid two persons, on 29.10.2012, an order was passed placing the petitioner under suspension in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Rule (a) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1978 contemplating a departmental inquiry alleging his involvement also in the incident dated 26.02.2012.

3. A charge-sheet was issued on 30.10.2013 alleging violation of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 - which are also applicable to the employees of the Export Inspection Agency (EIA). It was alleged that the appellant Sunil Kumar Saxena - while functioning as the Despatch Rider, conspired and connived with one Praveen Sakhuja - who was working as the Technical Officer at the EIA, as a result of which Shri Praveen Sakhuja physically assaulted Deepak Shekhar - retired Joint Director, Export Inspection Agency, Delhi, in the office premises. The statement of Article of Charge framed against the Appellant Sunil Kumar Saxena is reproduced as under:

"Statement of article of charge framed against Shri Sunil Kumar Saxena, Dispatch Rider/Under Suspension, EIA-Delhi

That said Shri Sunil Kumar Saxena, while functioning as Dispatch Rider, Export Inspection Agency-Delhi during the year 2012 conspired and connived with Shri Praveen Sakhuja, the then Technical Officer (now an ex-employee) in ETA-Delhi as a result of which Shri Praveen Sakhuja physically assaulted Shri Deepak Shekhar, Retd. Joint Director, EIA-Delhi in the office premises when Shri Deepak Shekhar visited the EIA-Delhi in the evening of 22/02/2012. The abovenamed Shri Sunil Kumar Saxena remained present during the entire period of the incident and his to and fro movements within, office premises prior and after the occurrence of incident as captured by CCTV cameras installed in the office premises of the EIA-Delhi show his active connivance with Shri Praveen Sakhuja.

By his above act, Shri Sunii Kumar Saxena, Dispatch Rider, EIA-Delhi has committed misconduct, which is highly unbecoming of an EIA employee and thereby contravened Rule-3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules,1964, which are applicable to the EIA employees by virtue of Rule-7 of the Export Inspection Agency Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1978."

4. The Appellant/petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 02.01.2014, and an Inquiry Officer was appointed in the matter. The Inquiry Officer examined large number of witnesses, including Deepak Shekhar - who was examined (as SW-1). Shri Deepak Shekhar never stated in the departmental inquiry that he was assaulted by the appellant Sunil Kumar Saxena. He also admitted that the appellant never misbehaved with him.

5. Another witness Manoj Kumar Gupta was examined as SW-2, and in his statement, he did not levy any allegation in respect of misbehavior on behalf of the appellant/petitioner. The appellant was examined on 15.06.2015 and made a request for examination of one Manoj Kumar Gupta as Defense Witness, however, his request was turned down by the Inquiry Officer on the ground that it was not made within time.

6. The