Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Challenging order dated 19.05.2012 and 18.09.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the evidence brought on record during the departmental enquiry does not establish the charge framed against the petitioner. The case against the petitioner is based on no evidence and therefore, the penalty order dated 19.05.2012 and the appellate order dated 18.09.2012 are liable to be interfered with by this Court. The learned counsel has further submitted that, only on the self-serving statement given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Smt. Emelda Ekka, the Enquiry Officer erroneously recorded the finding that the charge framed against the petitioner stood proved.;