Paul, J. -- 1. By preferring this writ appeal under section 2 of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2005, the appellant Union of India (Central Industrial Security Force - CISF) challenged the order dated 10.7.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.593/2002(S) (Sukhbir Singh Bais v. Union of India and others).

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under :

Respondent was working as a Constable in the CISF Unit Jorhat (Assam). The Department suspended him because he committed misconduct and a charge-sheet dated 27.9.2001 was served on him. Three articles of charges were made against him, which reads as under :

“Article of Charge-I :

That No.962331284 Constable Sukhvir Singh Bais of CISF Unit ONGC Jorhat (Jorhat Sector) created nuisance in Jorhat Mess under the influence of liquor and misbehaved with HC/GD P.C. Paul and Constable D.G. Ghosh using filthy language on 22.9.2001 at about 20:30 hrs. which tentamounts to gross misconduct, violation of instruction.

Article of Charge-II :

That No.962331284 Constable Sukhvir Singh Bais of CISF Unit ONGC Jorhat (Jorhat Sector) misbehaved and insulted Inspector S.N. Kundu and Insp/Exe P.K.S. Babu by throwing his cap, belt and shirt on them on 22.9.2001 at about 20:50 hrs. and 23:40 hrs. respectively which tentamounts to gross indiscipline and unbecoming of a member of the force.

Article of Charge-III :

That No.962331284 Constable Sukhvir Singh Bais of Jorhat Sector created hindrance and prevented in performance of duty by Inspector S.N. Kundu which tentamounts to gross misconduct and disobedience of order.”

Repondent denied the charges. The Department appointed an Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer’s report was supplied to the respondent and the disciplinary authority after taking the representation of the respondent on Enquiry Officer’s report, passed the order of dismissal from service. This order was called in question in Writ Petition No.593/2002.

The respondent took a stand before the writ Court that it was a case of “no evidence”. It is further argued that the Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authority have not examined the statements of witnesses in its true perspective and certain statements were not taken into account which were in favour of the respondent. It is stated that the incident took place after the duty hours of the respondent and, therefore, it does not constitute a misconduct under the Conduct Rules.

The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties allowed the writ petition and set aside the punishment order, directed reinstatement of the respondent without back wages.

3. Shri Ankur Mody, learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the order of learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with. He submits that the writ Court is not obliged to act as an appellate Court in the case of domestic enquiries. He submits that the appreciation of evidence is beyond the scope of judicial review. He submits that only in cases of “no evidence” interference can be made but in the present case a sizable number of prosecution witnesses entered the witness box, deposed their statements in specific against the respondent which establishes the misconduct committed by the respondent and, therefore, there was no scope for interference by the writ Court. He submits that the writ Court has virtually reappreciated the evidence, which was totally impermissible. Learned counsel submits that it cannot be lost sight that the respondent was an employee of an Armed Force and a disciplined force. A higher degree of discipline is expected from the members of the Force. He submits that there is no procedural irregularity or impropriety in the disciplinary proceedings and allegations are very serious in nature, therefore, there was no scope for interference by the writ Court. He cited certain judgments to state the punishment imposed was commensurate to the misconduct and cannot be said to be extremely