16.10.2016. The petitioner was admittedly on duty on 16.10.2016, at the frisking booth No.2 for checking/frisking/Security Check. The lady passenger was cleared by the petitioner by affixing her Seal No.595 on the Boarding Pass of the said passenger. The petitioner, while on duty at the Airport International Ladies Frisking Booth No.2 for frisking the lady passengers boarding international flights, was in the knowledge of the items permitted/prohibited on domestic and international flights. Kirpan being a prohibited item for being carried by a person on an international flight, the passenger, Jatinder Kaur Bajaj was cleared by the petitioner after a security check. The passenger was later on detected carrying a Kirpan on her person by the Air India Security Staff, which, no doubt, is a serious security lapse. 15. It is settled law that adequacy or inadequacy of evidence cannot be gone into by a writ court. As long as there is credible evidence in support of the findings returned during a domestic enquiry, the same cannot be interfered with by the Court. This Court, in exercise of its power under judicial review does not go into the correctness and truth of the charges; nor can it take over the functions of the Disciplinary Authority or sit in appeal against the finding of the Disciplinary Authority. 16. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has just repeated the factual aspects and sought to argue that the passenger might have carried the Kirpan in her hand baggage and later on taken it out from the hand baggage and carried it on her person, which was not even her plea in the reply. These are only surmises and conjectures, not borne out from the record. The decision of the respondents of holding the petitioner guilty for the security lapse by clearing the passenger, Jatinder Kaur Bajaj with a Kirpan to board a flight bound for New York, can neither be termed as
