Departmental enquiry findings are not binding on Government, but dismissal unsupported by evidence remains open to judicial review.

In a departmental enquiry, the Government is not bound by the enquiry officer's findings because the officer acts only as its delegate; the Government may accept those findings or differ from them after considering the report and evidence, and Article 311 is not violated on that basis. Judicial review under Article 226 remains available where the dismissal rests on no evidence, since courts may examine whether any evidentiary basis exists for the conclusion. Mere suspicion cannot sustain a disciplinary finding, and an order founded on an unsupported charge is liable to be interfered with.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Government, after receiving the report of the enquiry officer in a departmental proceeding, is bound by the findings recorded by that officer and cannot differ from them; (ii) whether, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can quash an of dismissal where the ultimate conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence.

Issue (i): whether the Government, after receiving the report of the enquiry officer in a departmental proceeding, is bound by the findings recorded by that officer and cannot differ from them.

Analysis: The enquiry officer acts only as the Government's delegate in conducting the departmental enquiry. The charge is framed by the Government and the power to impose punishment remains with it. After considering the enquiry report and the evidence, the Government may accept the findings or differ from them wholly or partly. The second notice contemplated by Article 311 serves to give the delinquent officer an opportunity to meet both the proposed punishment and the Government's tentative view on the charges. The findings of the enquiry officer, therefore, are not final or binding on the Government.

Conclusion: The Government is entitled to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer, and no violation of Article 311 arises on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can quash an order of dismissal where the ultimate conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence.

Analysis: Although adequacy of evidence is not for judicial reappraisal, the High Court can examine whether there is any evidence at all to support the impugned conclusion. A bona fide order is not immune if the finding is unsupported by evidence. On the record, the material relied upon for the third charge amounted only to suspicion, not proof. The evidence did not establish an attempt to offer a bribe, and mere suspicion could not legally sustain the finding.

Conclusion: The High Court could interfere because the finding sustaining the dismissal on the third charge was based on no evidence.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the legal issue concerning the Government's power to differ from the enquiry officer, but the dismissal could not stand because the decisive finding against the respondent lacked evidentiary support.

Ratio Decidendi: In a departmental enquiry, the Government is not bound by the enquiry officer's findings, but a dismissal based on a finding unsupported by any evidence is amenable to judicial review under Article 226.

---