A finding of fact by an authority concerned in a departmental inquiry cannot be set aside by the High Court in a writ petition unless it is based on no evidence or is perverse.

V. P. Gupta, J.—This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of Honble Hardyal Hardy, J. (as his Lordship then was) dated 27th July, 1970, by which he dismissed the civil writ petition of the present appellant and upheld the order of dismissal of the appellant from service passed on 2nd August, 1969.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Madan Lal appellant was employed in the Lubrication Sub-division of Beas-Sutlej Link Project (hereinafter shortly referred to as the B. S, L, Project) Mandi. He was dismissed from service vide order, dated.. August 1969 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Beas-Sutlej Link, Administration and Accounts Circle, Sundernagar. His appeal against his dismissal from ‘service’ was also rejected by the Chief Engineer, B. S. L. Project on 22nd January, 1970.

3. It is an admitted case that fire broke out in Lubrication Store at Sambal Terrace Lubrication Sub-division on 19th December, 1965 at about 8-15 A. M and the appellant was employed as a Special Charge man in this Lubrication Sub-division the said date. Due to this fire a loss of about Rs. 18,000 was estimated, and for ascertaining the cause of the fire and for fixing the liability upon the person who was responsible for this fire an Enquiry Committee was constituted. The said committee was to report on the following referenced: (i) The cause of the incident. (ii) Responsibility for the same. (iii) Measures to be adopted for .safeguard, against such fire in future The Inquiry Committee conducted a detailed enquiry and recorded the statements several witnesses. The Committee Vide report; dated 5th January, 1966 came to the conclusion that the fire was not due to the intentionally mischief by any one and that the same was due to unintentionally throwing of a match stick at the petrol" can after lighting a cigarette by the appellant. It was observed by the Committee that the appellant had thrown alighted march- stick on the petrol can unintentionally and due to this the fire broke out.

4. The appellant was charge-sheeted and he was askedto give his explanation. The appellant denied the allegations and further alleged that one Bairagi Ram Beldar filled his cigarette-lighter and tested: the same which a spark from the Jighter set the lubrication can on fire. This explanation was not considered to be sufficient and thereafter a show case notice was issued to the appellant as to why a penalty of dismissal from service should not be imposed/upon him and he was further asked to give his explanation by the Superintending Engineer. The appellant raised objections to the inquiry report arid contended that the inquiry Committee did not record the statements of the witnesses in his presence This objection of the appellant was considered to be valid and as such a fresh charge-sheet was served upon the appellant on 4th April 1967 (Annexure PF). The appellant submitted a reply to this charge-sheet (Annexure PG), and thereafter one Shop Surjit Singh, Executive Engineer, Sundernagar, was deputed to hold an "enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, Shri Surjit Singh submitted his report, dated 19th July, 1967, to the Superintending Engineer by saying that the charge against the appellant had been proved (Annexure PH). Upon the receipt of this report, another show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 9th August, 1967, and he was required to show cause as to why a penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed on him. The appellant failed to submit his reply to the show cause notice, and thereupon the Executive Engineer served an order of dismissal of the appellant from service, but this order was subsequently condoned on 7th September, 1967 (Annexure PM), Because the reply of the appellant was received by the Executive Engineer through the Secretary of the Workers Union, and the delay in submitting the reply seems to have been condone. The appellant challenged the right of the Executive Engineer to issue a show cause notice. This contention