Satish K. Agnihotri, C.J.Assailing the correctness and legality of the Final Report dated 21st November 2015 holding the petitioners guilty of the charges and the consequential order dated 11th July 2016, whereby the punishment of reduction of three annual increments to the lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect was imposed, the instant petition is filed. The petitioners, stated to be working on regular establishment of different departments under the Government in various capacities, were served with memorandum of charge-sheet on 04th February, 2010 alleging that the petitioners have participated in a programme organized by political leaders at Rolu, South Sikkim on 21st December 2009 and as such the same was violative of provisions of Rule 3(i) (c) of the Sikkim Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Conduct Rules"). The petitioners submitted their replies separately on 19.02.2010 (Annexure P-21), 30.03.2016 (Annexure P-22), 20.02.2010 (Annexure P-23), 08.09.2010 (Annexure P-24), 19.03.2016 (Annexure P-25), 10.03.2016 (Annexure P-26), 26.02.2010 (Annexure P-27), 18.02.2010 (Annexure P-28), 03.03.2010 (Annexure P-29), 25.02.2010 (Annexure P-30), 24.02.2010 (Annexure P-31), 20.02.2010 (Annexure P-32), 03.03.2010 (Annexure P-33), dated nil (Annexure P-34), 12.03.2016 (Annexure P-35), dated nil (Annexure P-36), 26.02.2016 (Annexure P-37) and 20.02.2016 (Annexure P-38) respectively. The third respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and recorded the deposition of all the petitioners. Considering the deposition, held the petitioners as guilty on the basis that "there is an admission in his deposition of having met political personalities (MLA, Shri P.S. Golay) who was present at the political gathering, it is amply clear that the Charged Official came there to meet him and therefore, by implication despite his denial it has been proved by his own admission that he met the political personalities," supported by an intelligence report. The appointing authority, accepting the Enquiry Report, imposed penalty, as afore stated, by impugned order dated 11th July 2016.

2. Mr. Moulik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been held guilty of misconduct of being unbecoming of a Government servant without proving the allegation of charge. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not admitted any misconduct of having participated in a political meeting knowingly with intention. It is further contended that the petitioners have been there as had gone for a picnic on a holiday, when they noticed that there was a meeting, some of the leaders were known to them and as such they met them. The petitioners were not aware that there was a political gathering/meeting. Their presence was neither intentional nor was there any active participation in the meeting. They are not a member of any political party. The Enquiry Officer had held the petitioners guilty after long about five years without examining the allegation made against them. Rule 6 of the Conduct Rules prohibits taking part in politics and election. Note 3 appended to the afore-stated Rule clearly provides that attendance at meetings organized by a political party would be construed as contravening if all the three conditions, stated therein, are satisfied, namely, the meeting was a public meeting and not in any sense a private or restricted meeting; the meeting was not held contrary to any prohibitory order or without permission where permission was needed and the Government servant in question does not himself speak at, or take active or prominent part in organizing or conducting the meeting. Even if the petitioners have participated unknowingly, there is no proof that the petitioners had either spoken in the meeting or taken active part in organizing and conducting the meeting. In such view of the matter, it was wrongly held that the petitioners have taken part in political meeting which is unbecoming of a Government servant under Rule 3 (i) (c) of the Conduct Rules.

3. Mr. Moulik would further contend that the Enquiry Officer has held the petitioners guilty on the basis of alleged admission which was never done without examining the relevant witnesses on a conjuncture, stating therein that there was an intelligence report which was neither referred to nor examined and a copy of the same was also not furnished to the petitioners affording an opportunity of hearing, before holding the petitioners guilty. Mr. Moulik would also contend that the respondent-authorities had adopted pick and choose policy. Certain government employees, namely, Man Bahadur Tamang, Teacher, Bimal Kharel, Teacher, C.K. Rai, Teacher, Milan Rai, Teacher, M.N. Sherpa, LDC, Tarka Man Tamang, Constable, were also served show-cause notices for the same charge and without imposing any punishment, they were permitted to retire voluntarily. Other persons, namely, M.K. Subba and Basant Kumar Rai, who in fact participated in the meeting under the banner of opposite political party repeatedly and spoke against the Government, they were, without any enquiry, promoted to the superior post. This conduct of the Government authorities clearly speak of biased attitude towards the petitioners. In such view of the matter, the Enquiry Report deserves to be quashed and the consequential order of punishment be also set aside.

4. Expostulating the afore-stated contention, Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, submits that the Enquiry Officer has examined the intelligence report wherein it was clearly found that the petitioners actively participated and also addressed the gathering. A copy of the said report could not be given, as it was confidential. The Enquiry Officer satisfied himself on the basis of the intelligence report, coupled with admission by the petitioners, to prove the charges. There is no infirmity or perversity in the Enquiry Report. Mr. Pradhan would further contend that the newspaper reports were produced before the Enquiry Officer, wherein it was clearly stated that wide publicity was given to holding of the meeting on the relevant date i.e. 21st December 2009 by the political leaders. The said fact was also corroborated by examining editors of some of the newspapers. Further contention of the respondents is that the petitioners were well aware of the nature of the meeting and they have participated in the meeting deliberately and also had taken active participation in the meeting. The said conduct of the petitioners come within the definition of unbecoming of a Government servant as prohibited under Rule 6 of the Conduct Rules. The punishment imposed on the petitioners was in accordance with the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioners. Thus, the petition deserves to be rejected.

5. I have carefully examined the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, analysed pleadings and evidence brought before the Enquiry Officer as well as other documents appended to the petition herein.

6. Indisputably, the petitioners were Government employees, working in the different departments, as described in the cause title, of the State Government. It is alleged that the petitioners participated in the meeting held on 21st December 2009. Accordingly, they were charged for attending such political gathering held in the guise of picnic at Rolu, South Sikkim, knowing well that the said gathering was organized by a few political functionaries for political purpose. The charge framed against them reads as under:

"............ attended a political gathering held in the guise of picnic at Rolu, South Sikkim on 21.12.2009, though it was well known through the local media and otherwise that the said gathering was organized by a few political functionaries for political purposes, and the announcement about the said gathering at Rolu on 21.12.2009 had been made by one of the said political personality at the launching of a web site against the Government on 07.12.2009, during which he had also made accusation against the democratically elected State Government and launching of a movement for political change.

2. The above act of Dr. C.P. Rai, amounts to an act unbecoming of a Government servant in violation of rules 3(i)(c) of Sikkim Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1981."

7. The list of documents along with charge-sheet and also a list of three witnesses, namely Smt. Sonam Wangmu Shenga, District Information Officer (East), Information and Public Relation Department, Shri Prem Vijay Basnet, Deputy Director, Information Technology Department, NK Shyam Bdr. Rai, Sikkim Police, was served on 04th February, 2010. The petitioners replied to the show-cause notice, on different dates, on almost in same line, denying their active participation and also stated that they were not aware of the political meeting as they do not subscribe any local newspaper, wherein the news was purportedly published that the political parties were organizing a political meeting on 21st December 2009.

8. The first petitioner in his reply stated as under:

"1. That between 17.12.2009 and 21.12.2009 we had religious worship (nag puja & graha shanti) at our home i.e. Namchi, South Sikkim. On the concluding day of the puja as is customary and ritualistic, we went to rolu mandir and to the near by river with offerings and the statues to immerse in the flowing stream/river with the direction of the priest chanting mantras (lamas) at around 9.30 am.

2. That while returning home we chanced upon the sitting MLA and Chairman and since we had some extra khadas we decided to pay our respects to him and so offered the khada and moved on."

9. The second petitioner, in her reply, stated that she has not attended any meeting on that date.

10. The third petitioner in his reply stated as under:

"1. That 20.12.2009 & 21.12.2009 also being Lossong i.e. a Government holiday, I had gone to visit my sister at her residence at Jorethang. On my way home the next day i.e. 21.12.2009 I attended a picnic party at Rolu, South Sikkim as I had been verbally invited by some acquaintance. I was not informed nor did I know that it was a "political gathering" as alleged. I did not attend the said function in my official capacity but in my personal capacity. The said gathering to the best of my understanding was not a political gathering and it comprised of mostly non-political people."

11. The fourth petitioner in his reply stated as under:

"1. That 21.12.2009 being a state holiday i.e. Lossong I attended a picnic party during held at Rolu, South Sikkim on invited from an acquaintance. Neither the invitation card nor the person who invited me indicated that it was a political gathering as alleged. I attended the said picnic on my personal capacity and not in the capacity of a Government servant since an acquaintance had invited me. I left the picnic program soon after some politician arrived and thereafter I have no idea what happened."

12. The fifth petitioner in his reply stated as under:

"1. That I had admitted only to the fact that I had attended the picnic organized at Rolu upon receiving invitation from my cousin. This fact does not automatically prove that I had attended a political function. Moreover, I even produced the invitation card of the said picnic and witnesses which clearly proves that I had attended a picnic."

13. The sixth petitioner in his reply stated as under:

"1. That I had admitted only to the fact that I had attended the picnic organized at Rolu upon receiving invitation from the organizers thereof who were my acquaintance. This fact does not automatically prove that I had attended a political function. Moreover, I even produced the invitation card of the said picnic and witnesses which clearly proves that I had attended a picnic."

14. The seventh petitioner in his reply stated as under:

"1. That I was given an invitation card by the organizers of "Lossong and Christmas Celebration Organising Committee" to attend a picnic programme at Rolu on 21.12.2009. The same being a state holiday i.e. Lossong I went and attended the said picnic program. The said invitation card nowhere indicated nor was I informed by the person who gave me the invitation that it was a political gathering as alleged. I attended the said picnic on my personal capacity and not in the capacity of a Government servant. The said gathering to the best of my understanding was not a political gathering and it comprised of mostly non-political people."

15. The eighth petitioner in his reply stated as under:

"That 21.12.2009 being a state holiday i.e. Lossong I went and attended the picnic programme organized by the "Lossong and Christmas Celebration Organising Committee" at Rolu on an invitation which did not indicate any where that it was a political gathering as alleged. I attended the said picnic on my personal capacity and not in the capacity of a Government servant. The said gathering to the best of my understanding was not a political gathering and it comprised of mostly non-political people."

16. The ninth petitioner stated in his reply as under:

"1. That I did not attend the alleged private political function on 7.12.2009 nor was I aware of the fact that such a meeting had been conducted as alleged since 7.12.2009 was a working day and I was very much present at my work place.

2. That I was given an invitation to attend a picnic program at Rolu on 21.12.2009 by some organizer of the "Lossong and Christmas Celebration Organising Committee". The said invitation card nowhere indicated that it was a political gathering as alleged. Since 21.12.2009 was a stated holiday i.e. Lossong I went and attended the said picnic program on my personal capacity and not in the capacity of a Government servant. I left the picnic programme soon after some politician arrived and thereafter I have no idea what happened."

17. The tenth petitioner stated in his reply as under:

"That 21/12/2009 was a State holiday and I went and attended a picnic organized by the "Lossong and Christmas Celebration Organising Committee" at Rolu on an invitation by a friend who was a member of the Organising Committee of the said picnic. The invitation card did not indicate in any manner that the said picnic was a political gathering. Having fallen on a government holiday, I had attended the said picnic bonafide, believing that the same was a social function and on my personal capacity. The said gathering to the best of my understanding was not a political gathering and it comprised of the mostly non-political people."

18. The eleventh petitioner in his reply stated as under:

"1 That I was given an invitation card by one of the organizers of "Lossong and Christmas Celebration Organising Committee" to attend a picnic programme at Rolu on 21.12.2009. The same being a state holiday i.e. Lossong I went and attended the said picnic program. The said invitation card nowhere indicated that it was a political gathering as alleged. I attended the said picnic on my personal capacity and not in the capacity of a Government servant. The said gathering to the best of my understanding was not apolitical gathering and it comprised of mostly non-political people."

19. The twelfth petitioner in his reply stated as under:

"That 21.12.2009 being a state holiday i.e. Lossong I attended a picnic party at Rolu, South Sikkim organized by some of my friends. The person who invited me or the invitation card which I received did not indicate that it was a political gathering as alleged. I attended the said picnic on my personal capacity and not in the capacity of a Government servant. The said gathering to the best of my understanding was not a political gathering and it comprised of mostly non-political people."

20. The thirteenth petitioner stated in his reply as under:

"1 That I was given an invitation card by some of the organizers of "Lossong and Christmas Celebration Organising Committee" to attend a picnic programme at Rolu on 21.12.2009. On that day I was scheduled to go to Kalimpong to visit my children at my in-laws residence. Since I received the invitation I though it may not be proper for me not to visit even for a short while. Therefore, on my way to Kalimpong I dropped in, stayed for a while and left for Kalimpong. During my stay in the picnic there was no political talk or speeches made by anybody. The said invitation card nowhere indicated nor was I informed by the persons who gave me the invitation that it was a political gathering as alleged. I attended the said picnic on my personal capacity and not in the capacity of a Government servant."

21. The fourteenth petitioner stated in his reply as under:

"1. That I had admitted only to the fact that I had attended the picnic organized at Rolu upon receiving invitation from the organizers thereof who were my acquaintance. This fact does not automatically prove that I had attended a political function. Moreover, I even produced the invitation card of the said picnic and witnesses which clearly proves that I had attended a picnic."

22. The fifteenth petitioner stated in his reply as under:

"1. That I had admitted only to the fact that I had attended the picnic organized at Rolu upon receiving invitation from the organizers thereof who were my acquaintance. This fact does not automatically prove that I had attended a political function. Moreover, I even produced the invitation card of the said picnic and witnesses which clearly proves that I had attended a picnic."

23. The sixteenth petitioner stated in his reply as under:

"That 21/12/2009 was a State holiday and I went and attended a picnic organized by the "Lossong and Christmas Celebration Organising Committee" at Rolu on an invitation. The invitation card did not indicate in any manner that the said picnic was a political gathering. Having fallen on a government holiday, I had attended the said picnic bona fidely believing that the same was a social function and on my personal capacity. The said gathering to the best of my understanding was not a political gathering and it comprised of the mostly non-political people."

24. The seventeenth petitioner stated in her reply as under:

"1. That I was invited by my cousin to attend the picnic at Rolu on 21.12.2009. Since 21.12.2009 was a state holiday i.e. Lossong I decided to attend the same. The said invitation card nowhere indicated that it was a political gathering as alleged. I attended the said picnic on my personal capacity and not in the capacity of a Government servant. The said gathering to the best of my understanding was not a political gathering and it comprised of mostly non-political people."

25. The eighteenth petitioner in his reply stated as under:

"3. That 21.12.2009 being a state holiday i.e. Lossong I went and attended the picnic program organized by the "Lossong and Christmas Celebration Organizing Committee" at Rolu on an invitation which did not indicate any where that it was a political gathering as alleged. I attended the said picnic on my personal capacity and not in the capacity of a Government servant since some of my neighbours invited me. I left the picnic program soon after some politician arrived and thereafter I have no idea what happened. "

26. On receipt of the response, the third respondent was notified as Enquiry Officer. On perusal of the documents, it appears that the Enquiry Officer has examined four other witnesses, besides the delinquent employees. Pema Wangchuk Dorjee, the Editor and Publisher of local daily, Sikkim Now, deposed that the news of the meeting held on 21st December 2009 at Rolu, wherein P.S. Tamang (Golay) was speaking for the first time, was published and he openly spoke against the SDF. The said statement, according to him, was made on the basis of report of the reporter. There is no mention of presence of any petitioner, except some Government employees. Smt. Sonam Wangmu Sherpa, deposed that the different newspapers have published the news on different dates. Mr. Shyam Bdr. Rai, Head Constable stated that he has processed the report regarding attendance of picnic by Government employees and others. The report only indicated about attending by political personalities. Other witness, namely, Prem Vijay Basnet also did not state anything about presence of the petitioners. One more witness, K.K. Pradhan, O/C of the Special Branch deposed that presence of Government employees and others without specifying the name of any employee. Presence and participation of any petitioner was not stated by any of the witnesses, as above referred.

27. The Enquiry Officer in his report found the petitioners guilty on the basis of intelligence report coupled with the admission of charge. The Enquiry Office has neither dealt with intelligence report nor discussed any statement made by any party, holding that it was a case of circumstantial evidence.

28. The disciplinary authority accepted the report and imposed punishment of reduction of three annual increments to the lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect, vide order dated 11th July, 2016, which is impugned in this writ petition.

29. On analysis of the charge framed against the petitioners and also the so called admission, it is not established that the petitioners have admitted participation of any political meeting knowingly in unequivocal and clear terms and as such it can safely be held that the enquiry finding is without any basis on no evidence.

30. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Prasad Saxena v. The State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1961 SC 1070 [LQ/SC/1960/249] , wherein the appellant, permanently employed as distillery inspector, was furnished with a charge-sheet on the basis of alleged admission, the Supreme Court held as under: -

"(11) .................. In such a case, even if the appellant had made some statements which amounted to admission it is open to doubt whether he could be removed from service on the strength of the said alleged admissions without holding a formal enquiry as required by the rules. But apart from this consideration, if the statements made by the appellant do not amount to a clear or unambiguous admission of his guilt, failure to hold a formal enquiry would certainly constitute a serious infirmity in the order of dismissal passed against him. Under Article 311(2) he was entitled to have a reasonable opportunity of meeting the charge framed against him, and in the present case, before the show-cause notice was served on him he has had no opportunity at all to meet the charge. After the charge-sheet was supplied to him he did not get an opportunity to cross-examine Kethulekar and others. He was not given a copy of the report made by the enquiry officers in the said enquiries. He could not offer his explanation as to any of the points made against him; and it appears that from the evidence recorded in the previous enquiries as a result of which Kethulekar was suspended an inference was drawn against the appellant and show-cause notice was served on him. In our opinion, the appellant is justified in contending that in the circumstances of this case he has had no opportunity of showing cause at all, and so the requirement of Article 311 (2) is not satisfied."

31. This proposition of law was further reaffirmed in Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 32 [LQ/SC/1970/426] , held as under:

"5. It was contended on the basis of the ruling reported in R. v. Durham Quarter Sessions; Ex parte Virgo (1952 (2) QBD 1) that on the facts admitted in the present case, a plea of guilty ought not to be entered upon the record and a plea of not guilty entered instead. Under the English law, a plea of guilty has to be unequivocal and the court must ask the person and if the plea of guilty is qualified the Court must not enter a plea of guilty but one of not guilty. The police constable here was not on his trial for a criminal offence. It was a departmental enquiry, on facts of which due notice was given to him. He admitted the facts. In fact his counsel argued before us that he admitted the facts but not his guilt. We do not see any distinction between Admission of facts and admission of guilt. When he admitted the facts, he was guilty. The facts speak for themselves. It was a clear case of indiscipline and nothing less. ........."

32. From the above, it is discernible that the statement made by the delinquent employee admitting the guilt must be clear, unambiguous and unconditional to dispense with holding of a proper enquiry. In other words, if the admission is ambiguous and conditional, the enquiry is mandatory before holding the employee as guilty of charges. Applying the well-settled principle of law to the facts of the case, it is manifest that the petitioners have not admitted their participation in the said meeting knowingly that the meeting was organized by political leaders. The petitioners, except second petitioner, have further stated that they have gone for picnic and wherein they found that there was a meeting attended by some known leaders, they were simply present without speaking or organizing or taking active participation in the meeting. The said statement cannot fall within the ambit of admission of charges, as required within the requisites of Rules 6 of the Conduct Rules. Thus, the purported admission, not being clear, unequivocal or unconditional, cannot form the basis to hold the petitioners guilty of the charge.

33. Insofar as the so-called intelligence report is concerned, seemingly the same was not produced before the Enquiry Officer, as he has not adverted to in his Enquiry Report. It is not disputed that neither the contents of the said intelligence report was disclosed to the delinquent employees nor a copy of the same was furnished to them to meet with the same. In such circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the Enquiry Report was based on no evidence and as such it is perverse.

34. The Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others, (1999) 2 SCC 10 [LQ/SC/1998/1197] , relied by Mr. A. Moulik, examining the ambit of perverse finding, held as under:

"7. In Nand Kishore v. State of Bihar, (1978) 3 SCC 366 [LQ/SC/1978/139] , it was held that the disciplinary proceedings before a domestic Tribunal are of quasi-judicial character and, therefore, it is necessary that the Tribunal should arrive at its conclusions on the basis of some evidence, that is to say, such evidence which, and that too, with some degree of definiteness, points to the guilt of the delinquent and does not leave the matter in a suspicious state as mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. If, therefore, there is no evidence to sustain the charges framed against the delinquent, he cannot be held to be guilty as in that event, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer would be perverse.

8. The findings recorded in a domestic enquiry can be characterised as perverse if it is shown that such findings are not supported by any evidence on record or is not based on the evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person could have come to those findings on the basis of that evidence. This principle was laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 [LQ/SC/1963/105] , in which the question was whether the High Court, under Article 226, could interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry. This decision was followed in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain, AIR 1969 SC 983 [LQ/SC/1968/224] and Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel, (1976) 1 SCC 518 [LQ/SC/1975/413] . In Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. (1984) 4 SCC 635 [LQ/SC/1984/261] , it was laid down that where the findings of misconduct are based on no legal evidence and the conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could come, the findings can be rejected as perverse. It was also laid down that where a quasi-judicial tribunal records findings based on no legal evidence and the findings are his mere ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated.

x x x

10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with."

35. Mr. J.B. Pradhan emphatically submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court in dealing with departmental enquiry is limited. The finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer be not interfered with lightly and as such the petition be rejected.

36. In response, it was submitted that in normal course, the court may not interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, however, if the enquiry is based on no evidence or it is perverse, the Court has competent jurisdiction to interfere with the Enquiry Report and consequential order.

37. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 [LQ/SC/1963/208] , examining the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in case of departmental enquiry, elucidated the proposition of law as under:

"(20) ................... It is a conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the face of the record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. In dealing with writ petitions filed by public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Article 311 (2), the High Court under Article 226 has Jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. It is true that the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order; nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal, is based on no evidence. ....................."

38. In Kuldeep Singh (supra), the Supreme Court further reaffirmed as under: -

"6. It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under Article 32 would not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the Enquiry Officer as a matter of course. The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role of the Appellate Authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can the Court interfere. The power of judicial review available to the High Court as also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior authority.

x x x

9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny."

39. Keeping in view the fact that the Enquiry Report is based on no evidence, this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with this Enquiry Report and set right the injustice meted to the Government employees.

40. Mr. Moulik has attempted to submit that there was a bias against the petitioners, as some officers namely, Man Bahadur Tamang, Teacher, Bimal Kharel, Teacher, C.K. Rai, Teacher, Milan Rai, Teacher, M.N. Sherpa, LDC, Tarka Man Tamang, Constable, were charge-sheeted for participating in the same meeting, but they were permitted to take voluntary retirement, under what circumstances those officials were voluntarily retired is not on record. It is further submitted that one M.K. Subba and Basant Kumar Rai, also participated in several political meetings but they were promoted. In this case also no materials have been produced as to how they participated, whether it was proved and under what circumstance they were promoted. The said persons have not been impleaded as party-respondents, herein. Thus, I am not inclined to go into the allegation made against them.

41. Presuming it is correct, in that event also, it does not make out a case of bias against the petitioners, as alleged, as bias has to be proved strictly and against the individuals and not against the whole Government. There is no specific allegation against any persons and as such allegation of bias is noted to be rejected.

42. Let me now proceed to examine the relevant provisions of the Conduct Rules. Rule 3 (i) (c) provides that every Government Servant shall at all times do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government Servant. Rule 6 forbids taking part in politics and election, which reads as under: -

"6. Taking part in politics and election.-

(i) No Government Servant shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organization which takes part in political movement or activity.

(ii) It shall be the duty of every Government Servant to endeavour to prevent any member of his family from taking part in, subscribing in aid of or assisting in any other manner, any movement or activity which is, or tends directly or indirectly to be, subversive of the Government as by law established and where a Government Servant is unable to prevent a member of his family from taking part in, or subscribing in aid of or assisting in any other manner, any such movement or activity, he shall make a report to that effect to the Government.

(iii) If any question arises whether any movement or activity falls within the scope of sub-rule (i), the decision of the Government thereon shall be final.

(iv) No Government Servant shall canvas or otherwise interfere with, or use his influence in connection with or take part in, an election to any Legislature or Local Authority:

Provided that -

(a) a Government servant qualified to vote as such election may exercise his right to vote, but where he do so, he shall give no indication of the manner in which he proposes to vote or has voted.

(b) a Government Servant shall not be deemed to have contravened the provisions of this sub-rule by reason only that he assists in the conduct of an election in the due performance of a duty imposed on him by or under any law for the time being in force.

Explanation.-The display by a Government Servant on his person, vehicle or residence of any electoral symbol shall amount to using his influence in connection with an election within the meaning of this sub-rule.

Note 1.- A Government Servant who has reason to believe that attempts are being made to induce him to break the provisions of this rule by or on behalf of an official superior or superiors shall report the fact to the Chief Secretary to the Government.

Note 2.- Proposing or seconding the nomination of a candidate at an election or acting as a Polling Agent shall be deemed as an active participation in the election.

Note 3.- Attendance at meetings organized by a political party shall be construed as contravening this rule unless all the following conditions are satisfied: -

(a) that the meeting is a public meeting and not in any sense a private or restricted meeting.

(b) that the meeting is not held contrary to any prohibitory order or without permission where permission is needed.

(c) that the Government Servant in question does not himself speak at, or take active or prominent part in organizing or conducting the meeting."

43. Charge of misconduct, as alleged against the petitioners, is that the petitioners have participated in a meeting organized by political leaders, which was duly published earlier and as such willingly they took active participation. There is no allegation that the petitioners are member of, or be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organization which takes part in political movement or activity. It is also not the allegation that there is any participation in aid of or assisting in any manner, any movement or activity which is, or tends directly or indirectly to be, subversive of the Government as by law established. There is no allegation of canvassing or otherwise interfering with, or using the influence in connection with or taking part in, an election to any Legislature or Local Authority. The allegation of participation in the meeting is explained in Note 3, which provides that attendance at meetings organized by a political party shall be construed as contravening this rule i.e. Rule 6, unless all the following conditions are satisfied. There are three conditions - (i) that the meeting is a public meeting and not in any sense a private or restricted meeting; (b) that the meeting is not held contrary to any prohibitory order or without permission where permission is needed; and (c) that the Government Servant in question does not himself speak at, or take active or prominent part in organizing or conducting the meeting. Mere attendance may not come within the mischief that he knowingly participated in a public meeting and also either speaks or take active or prominent part in organizing or conducting the meeting. These aspects have also not been examined in the Enquiry Report, as required under the charge made against the petitioners. In such view of the matter, the Enquiry Report is to be held as perverse and on no evidence.

44. The last contention put forth by Mr. Pradhan is that in the event it is found that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the disciplinary authority be permitted to conduct the enquiry afresh from the point to be vitiated. He relies on an observation made by the Supreme Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others v. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 [LQ/SC/2012/1040] and Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 [LQ/SC/2014/1233] .

45. In Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:-

"16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the Court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide: ECIL v. B. Karunakar : (1993) 4 SCC 727 [LQ/SC/1993/843] ; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. S.M. School for Girls, (2002) 10 SCC 293 [LQ/SC/2000/1681] ; U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264 [LQ/SC/2005/965] and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu, (2008) 12 SCC 30 [LQ/SC/2008/1937] )."

46. In Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran (supra), it was held that if the enquiry is conducted in accordance with the law, the High Court cannot venture into re-appropriation of evidence or interfere with the conclusion in enquiry proceedings; further the punishment may also not be interfered with. In the case on hand, the enquiry is found not having been conducted in accordance with law and it is perverse and as such interference is necessitated. The punishment imposed on the petitioners cannot be permitted to continue till the charge made against them is found proved and the petitioners are found guilty. The charge was not found proved and as such the enquiry is liable to be quashed and the consequential punishment also deserves to be set aside.

47. Considering the entire factual matrix, as afore-stated, in its proper prospective, it is unhesitatingly held that the Enquiry Report was perverse on the basis of no evidence and as such it is quashed. The consequential order of imposition of punishment, vide order dated 11th July, 2016, is also quashed and set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State-respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh enquiry, if so advised, from the stage of submission of response by the petitioners and may take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

48. Resultantly, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs.