Madhya Pradesh High Court – Photo: Amar Ujala Detail Follow Us 0279254 74018 97804 0775138 87565 0678852 0702884 A petition was filed in the High Court against his conviction in the departmental inquiry despite being acquitted in the offense of gambling. A single bench of High Court Justice GS Ahluwalia has said in its order that departmental inquiry can be interfered with only when it is done on the basis of no evidence. The single bench rejected the petition considering the departmental inquiry conducted on the basis of evidence as correct. In the petition filed on behalf of SAF constable Utsaksh Upadhyay posted in Chhindwara, it was said that the Bhopal police had caught him gambling Case of playing was registered. After this, orders for departmental inquiry were issued against him. He was acquitted by the court in the crime of gambling. He was found guilty in the departmental inquiry and punished with one increment. Against this he filed an appeal, which was dismissed. It was said in the petition that only the departmental witness had given statements against him during the departmental inquiry. The independent witness in his statement had told that he was not aware of the matter. Despite this, he was punished after a departmental inquiry. In the petition, the relief of cancellation of the departmental punishment was sought. The single bench observed in its order that the arresting police official had no enmity with the petitioner and was a departmental witness in the investigation. The High Court interferes in the departmental inquiry only when a conclusion is reached without any evidence. A departmental inquiry was conducted on the basis of evidence in this matter. The Single Judge dismissed the petition with the said order. ,