“The departmental authorities are the sole judges of facts, and if there be some legally admissible evidence, on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, if the enquiry has otherwise been properly held. Here, in the instant case, no document which has been created behind the back of the applicant, has been relied upon by the Enquiry officer, and all the documents relied upon were the creation of the applicant himself, under his own handwriting. This aspect has been appreciated by the Honble High Court also while setting aside his acquittal by the trial Court. Therefore, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that the findings of the Enquiry officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, are not based on legally admissible evidence, and that no reasonable person could have arrived at on those findings on the basis of the material available. It is not as if any deposition of a witness had been recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the absence of the delinquent public servant, who is the applicant before us, or a copy thereof has not been given to him or a witness has been produced, and an opportunity has not been given to him, to cross examine that witness.
