- (1.) After holding a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the appointing authority, namely, Commandant, 3rd Battalion H.A.P. Hissar, vide order dated September 24, 2001 (P-4). The Commandant has found that the petitioner has committed a gravest act of misconduct by way of tearing off one page of Roznamcha and that the petitioner was holding responsible rank in the disciplinary post. Against the aforementioned order passed by the Commandant, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director Inspector General of Armed Police, Haryana. After hearing the appeal and taking into consideration the length of service of the petitioner, the order of dismissal was considered disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority took a lenient view and modified the punishment of dismissal to that of stoppage of three future annual grade increments with permanent effect. The Appellate Authority also held that the petitioner was also not entitled to any back wages for the period he remained out of service on the principle of 'No work no pay'. Against the aforementioned order, revision petition filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed on October 11, 2003 (P-7). The aforementioned order has been made subject matter of challenge in this petition.
(2.) The only complaint made is that the finding recorded by enquiry officer cannot be sustained as only one witness has supported the charge. It is on the aforementioned basis that the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought the quashing of order annexure P-5 and P-1.
(3.) Having heard the learned counsel we are of the considered view that no lacuna could be found in the enquiry held against the petitioner nor any complaint with regard to non-grant of opportunity of hearing has been made. We find that it is not a case of no evidence so as to conclude that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are bald. The Courts cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the finding of the enquiry officer nor it can examine the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a charge. The aforementioned area has been left to the discretion of the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority. Probably, it is on account of the aforementioned fact that the Appellate Authority has reduced the punishment of dismissal to that of stoppage of future annual grade increments for three years. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner.;