SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THE only contention raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that the defence taken by petitioner has not been believed by authorities concerned in holding the charges proved and, therefore, the impugned orders are illegal. He submitted that in respect to allegation of his absence from 20.2.1999 to 23.2.1999 and 28.4.1999 to 7.3.1999, he had submitted written letter of Gram Pradhan showing that he had gone thereto and that from 5.3.1999 and onwards he was absent on account of illness for which medical certificate was also submitted but these documents have not been believed by authorities concerned and instead they have relied on the complaint and report submitted by Collection Amin with whom petitioner was attached though petitioner did not accompany him for collection proceeding during aforesaid period.
(2.) WHETHER an evidence is to be believed or not is within the domain of administrative authorities and unless it is shown that findings recorded by authorities concerned is perverse or contrary to material on record, no interference in judicial review in departmental inquiry matter should be made. In the matter of departmental enquiry, what is the scope of judicial review, has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723, and in para 7 it has held as under: "There is no warrant for the view expressed by the High Court that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of the misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court, must be applied, and if that rule be not applied, the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry invalid. The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very fact of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds, But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution."(para 7)
(3.) IN Bareilly Electricity Supply Company Ltd. Vs. Workmen and Ors. 1971 (2) SCC 617, the Apex Court held that the procedure prescribed in the Evidence Act is not applicable in the departmental proceedings and the only requirement is that the evidence should be collected by giving due opportunity to the delinquent employee as well. Something, which is not a legal evidence may not be acted upon unless it is admitted in the departmental proceedings by the person competent to spoke about them and are subjected to cross-examination. The relevant observations are as under: "But the application of principal of natural justice does not imply that what is not evidence can be acted upon. On the other hand what it means is that no material can be relied upon to establish a contested fact which are not spoken to by persons who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to cross-examination by the party against whom they are sought to be used." (para 14);