Anoop Chitkara DECISION
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the appellant has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant was deputed to drive the departmental vehicle from Shimla to Kalka. According to the appellant, when he was coming back to Shimla, he got down from the vehicle and was overpowered by some unknown persons. Such persons drugged him and when he regained consciousness, he found himself at his residence on 06.10.2004. Whereas, the fact of the matter is that the vehicle of the appellant had met with an accident on the evening of the same day at Kachighati, Shimla, causing loss to the tune of Rs. 59,190/-. But, the appellant neither reported the matter to the police nor apprised the department. This led initiation of departmental proceedings against appellant for which he was served a memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 dated 02.12.2004. The appellant filed a detailed reply to the same dated 10.12.2004.
3. The Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Inquiry Officer gave findings that the delinquent official drove the vehicle in a negligent manner, resulting in accident on 05.10.2004 and the version put forth by the appellant that some unidentified persons had drugged him and thereafter dropped him at his residence was not accepted by the Inquiry Officer.
4. The appellant was permitted to file representation to the inquiry report vide memorandum dated 28.07.2006. The appellant filed a detailed reply dated 11.08.2006. However, the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the same and ordered the removal of the appellant vide order dated 21.09.2006 by passing a detailed/speaking order.
5. The appellant thereafter assailed the removal order before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3229 of 2006 which upon abolition of the learned Tribunal came to be transferred to this Court and was assigned CWP(T) No. 6354 of 2008. Since, the appellant had not filed any statutory appeal against the order of removal, he was permitted to file a statutory appeal and the petition was disposed of on 05.04.2010. The appellant thereafter filed statutory appeal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 10.06.2010.
6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the authorities below, the appellant filed CWP No. 4849 of 2010 and, as observed above, the same came to be dismissed by by the learned Single Judge, constraining the appellant to file the instant appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.
7. At the outset, it needs to be noted that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the entire material on record has drawn a specific conclusion that the version put forth by the appellant regarding the accident was a cock and bull story and, as a matter of fact, an accident had occurred because of the gross negligence of the appellant.
8. Insofar as the reliability and adequacy of the evidence is concerned, this Court cannot venture into reappreciation of the evidence and act as third Appellate Authority. The scope of interference by the High Court in such matters has been succinctly summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. P. Gunasekaran MANU/SC/1068/2014 : AIR 2015 SC 545 in the following terms:-
"13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating ........