Premlal Pathak vs State of M.P. and Ors

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondents and have examined the order of the learned Single Judge. The relevant part of the order of the learned Single Judge is contained in para-7 which is reproduced below:

In the backdrop of well settled legal position, I have gone through the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is relevant to mention here that a Magisterial enquiry was ordered into the incident by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the Magisterial enquiry, it has been found that one accused namely Narendra Pandey, who was in confinement for an offence u/s 306/34 of I.P.C., died in custody. It was also found that petitioner went to Jail and threatened the aforesaid Narendra Pandey and provoked the other employees of the Jail to beat Narendra Pandey, as the petitioner''s relatives were accused in an offence u/s 302 of I.P.C. in which aforesaid Narendra Pandey was a witness. The petitioner pressurised and threatened Narendra Pandey and got him beaten by other employees of the sub-jail so as to pressurize him to compromise the matter with the relatives of the petitioner. In the course of the enquiry, the statement of witnesses Puroshottamlal Pandey, Ayoudhya Pandey, Lalla Sahu and Rajkumar Vishwakarma were recorded. The Enquiry Officer after meticulous appreciation of material available on record has recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner has been found to be proved. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer by no stretch of imagination can either be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit over the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, as if it is exercising an appellate jurisdiction. The petitioner has neither been able to demonstrate either any violation of principles of natural justice or violation of any statutory rules.

It has not been shown to us as to how and on what legally permissible ground the findings of fact recorded upon the appreciation of evidence could be interfered with by the Writ Court. The punishment has already been converted from removal to compulsory retirement. We, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.