JOSELYN MANIKYA Vs. MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this Petition are brief and may be immediately stated. The petitioner was working as a Senior sister Group -E with the Respondent. She was charged with dereliction of duty and misconduct and an enquiry was initiated against her. During the course of the enquiry, the Management produced three witnesses to prove the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce any evidence in rebuttal. Based on the aforesaid evidence, the Enquiry Officer, submitted a Report holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved. On receipt of the said Report, the Management served upon the petitioner a show cause notice asking her to explain as to why she should not be demoted from Group -E to Group -D, as specific punishment for misconduct proved against her. In response to the said show cause notice the petitioner submitted a Representation explaining her position. The Management, however, proceeded ahead with the imposition of the punishment and conveyed the same to the petitioner by an order dated : 10th July 1984 impugned in the present petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for parties and perused the records.

(3.) THERE is no quarrel with the proposition that this Court will be justified in interfering with the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer in case it is found to be perverse in the sense that it is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or that the evidence is such on the basis whereof no reasonable person could draw the conclusion actually drawn by the Enquiry Officer. The question, however, is whether the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, in the instant case are really perverse in that sense.