JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The appellant was employed as a Field Officer. This post was on the development site of the Life Insurance Corporation. The Corporation served a charge-sheet on the appellant somewhere here in May, 1958 and after enquiry he was reduced to a lower scale of pay in the same post. Subsequently in May 1959 further charges were served Ripon the appellant. After a preliminary enquiry formal notice to show cause against the punishment of dismissal to was served on the appellant on 8th January, 1960. The appellant submitted a explanation whereupon on 16th March, 1960 the Zonal Manager passed an order posting the appellant as an Assistant on the Administrative side with a reduced salary. This punishment was inflicted in lieu of the proposed punishment of dismissal. n the letter dated 16th March, 1960 the Zonal Manager stated that the appellant's basic Salary will he Rs. 210/- while his dearness allowance will be Rs. 70/-. Subsequently the Zonal Manager served on the petitioner another notice dated 19/23rd August, 1960 stating that he had been informed by the Central Office that consequent upon the absorption of the appellant from Development to Administrative side as an Assistant the salary of the appellant could be fixed as under :- Basic Salary D. A. Total Rs. 144/-. Rs. 60/- Rs. 204/-. This refixation was made effective from the 17th of March, 1960 when the appellant joined the post of the Assistant. 2. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed an appeal but the appeal was rejected. Thereafter the appellant instituted a writ petition which also failed. 3. The case of the appellant is that by the letter dated 16th March, 1960 the Zonal manager had inflicted upon the appellant the punishment of reduction in rank accompanied by the transfer from the Development to the Administrative side. As a result of this punishment the Zonal Manager fixed the basic pay of the appellant at Rs. 210/- and dearness allowance at Rs. 70/-. By the aforesaid letter the appellant was required to confirm his acceptance. The appellant gave his consent and on the vary next day he joined the new post on the term; and conditions offered by the Zonal Manager. Thereafter the Zonal Manager had no jurisdiction to very the pay of the appellant. 4. 210/- and dearness allowance at Rs. 70/-. By the aforesaid letter the appellant was required to confirm his acceptance. The appellant gave his consent and on the vary next day he joined the new post on the term; and conditions offered by the Zonal Manager. Thereafter the Zonal Manager had no jurisdiction to very the pay of the appellant. 4. In reply the case of the Life Insurance Corporation is that in fact this was a case of transfer from the Development side to the Administrative side on a voluntary request made by the appellant and in that situation the Circular dated 19/23rd February, 1959 issued by the Managing Director of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Office, Bombay to all the Zonal Managers became applicable. The fixation of the salary for the post of Assistant could be done only in accordance with the direction contained in that Circular. Subsequently, the Zonal Manager realised that he had committed a mistake in fixing the pay of the appellant. This error was rectified by the later order. 5. It was also urged on behalf of the Life Insurance Corporation that the appellant wants to enforce the regulations governing disciplinary matter. Even if the authorities committed an error in construing them, since the regulations do not have any statutory force their decision cannot be challenged by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. On the merits the question is whether the Circular dated 19/23rd February, 1959 was applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. It appears that the show cause notice was served on the appellant on the 8th January, 1960. The same day he sought an interview with the Zonal Manager. After the interview he addressed to the Zonal Manager a letter. In consequence, the Zonal Manager passed the order dated 16th March. 1960. In this letter the Zonal Manager stated: "Dear Sir You were asked to show cause by our letter dated 8th January, 1960 why you should not be dismissed from service and in your letter dated 8th January, 1960 you have prayed for more lenient treatment and expressed your willingness to work in any cadre. Having regard to all the circumstances and your representations; it has been decided to post you as an Assistant on a reduced salary". 8. Having regard to all the circumstances and your representations; it has been decided to post you as an Assistant on a reduced salary". 8. It will be seen that this later indicated that the Zonal Manager was influenced by the representations made by the appellant at the interview as well as by the assurances extended by the appellant in his letter dated 8th January, 1960. These impelled him to inflict a lesser punishment upon the appellant than of dismissal, which was proposed in the show cause notice. According to this letter, the Zonal Manager was under the impression that in the appellant's representations and the letter dated 8th January, 1960 the appellant had requested that he was prepared to work at any post, if he was not dismissed. 9. In this state of facts the Central Office and the Zonal Manager took the view that it was a case of transfer on the request of the employee. Under Article 226 of the Constitution this court does not sit as a court of appeal on facts. The view on fact that this was a case of voluntary transfer does not, in our it opinion, suffer from any error of law. On the finding, the Circular was admittedly applicable. It is again undisputed that the impugned order corrected the error in the first order and fixed the salary according to the Circular. The fixation being in the normal exigency of service could not be deemed inflicting any punishment so as to require compliance with the regulations governing disciplinary proceedings. 10. Since the petition is liable to fail on merits we consider it unnecessary to go into the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. In the result the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.