JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - Appointed as a Helper by the Steel Authority of India (Rourkela Steel Plant) in December, 195) and promoted as Fitter in the By-products Branch in January, 1970, the petitioner faced a disciplinary proceeding being charged, as per Annexure-2, with having received overpayments of wages amounting to Rs. 5,006.51 paise for the period from January 1979 to January 1980 and for having failed to bring the overpayments to the notice of the department with a view to appropriating the amounts overpaid which would amount to misconduct in accordance with Clause 28 of the Standing Orders. The petitioner showed cause stating to have overdrawn the amounts, but had pleaded that this act was not owing to any mistake on his part and he had no intention to misappropriate the same and had not brought it to the notice of the department due to his ignorance. He had further stated that he had no objection if the overpayments drawn by him were deducted from his monthly wages in easy installments The matter was enquired into and the Enquiry Committee, as per Annexure-10, found the petitioner to be guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from service as per the order dated March 18/22, 1983 vide Annexure-11. The petitioner unsuccessfully appealed against the impugned order of punishment. His appeal was dismissed as per Annexure-13 The petitioner has moved this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the impugned order of punishment and the order passed by the appellate authority as being unfounded, illegal and unconstitutional. 2. In the counter affidavit put in by the opposite parties, it has been averred that the petitioner had admitted the charges framed against him. He had worked against the interest of the (Company which would amount to misconduct under Clauses 27 and 28 of the Standing Orders, and according to the case of the opposite parties, the petitioner also was guilty of dishonesty in connection with the Company's property which would amount to misconduct under Clauses 28 (ii) of the Standing Orders. It has been stated by the opposite parties that a part of the sum overdrawn had been recovered from the wages of the petitioner. 3. It has been stated by the opposite parties that a part of the sum overdrawn had been recovered from the wages of the petitioner. 3. A number of grounds have been taken in the writ application including non-supply of copies of documents admitted at the stage of enquiry and the enquiry report with the statements of the sole witness examined for the opposite parties. Mr. Ranjit Mohanty appearing for the petitioner has, however, canvassed at the hearing of this writ application that the overdrawals were not owing to the fault of the petitioner who had never admitted the charges, as wrongly stated by the opposite parties and in any case, the overdrawals would not amount to misconduct within the purview of the Standing Orders of the Company, This contention has been repelled by Mr. Ashok Das appearing for the opposite parties who has submitted that the acts of the petitioner would come within the purview of Clause 28 (ii) of the Standing Orders of the Company and the petitioner has appropriately been punished. 4. While considering an application under Arts 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not to correct mere errors of facts by examining and re-appreciating the materials. Concurrent findings of competent authorities giving cogent reasons are not open to challenge unless the findings are perverse and based on no materials. The quantum of punishment is not ordinarily to be gone into, but if there is no justification for the punishment imposed, appropriate relief can be granted by the High Court. 5. The specific charge in Annexure-2 against the petitioner was that although he had received overpayments of wages, he had failed to bring these overpayments to the notice of his department with a view to appropriating the same to himself which would amount to misconduct in accordance with Clause 28 of the Standing Orders. We have been taken through the different sub-clauses of Clause 28 of the Standing Orders. This clause does not provide for any such misconduct on the part of an employee owing to silence on his part to bring any overpayments of wages to the notice of the authorities. While showing cause, the petitioner had specifically stated that the overpayments had not been made owing to any mistake on his part and that he had no intention to misappropriate the same. 6. While showing cause, the petitioner had specifically stated that the overpayments had not been made owing to any mistake on his part and that he had no intention to misappropriate the same. 6. As would be clear from the materials placed before us including Annexure-1, the dues of the petitioner as well as the deduction on different heads varied from month to month and the petitioner had no scope to know as to any shortage or overpayments made to him. The practice in the office of the opposite party No 1 was that the department used to deposit the monthly dues calculated by it in the accounts of the concerned members of the staff in their respective Banks and the concerned members of the staff used to withdraw the amounts as required by them. The petitioner had his Savings Bank Account No 2645 in the Bank of Baroda at Rourkela. The petitioner had asserted that he was in no way responsible for the faulty calculations of his dues and it has rightly been contended on his behalf that the conclusion arrived at by the opposite parties have not been based on any materials, but on surmises and conjectures. 7. Only one witness hid been examined during the enquiry on behalf of the opposite parties and he had been working as the Chief Time Keeper. According to him there were several Time Officers in the Steel Plant who used to maintain the attendance of the workmen and the records of overtime works, leave, etc. and on the basis of such documents, payments were being made to the workmen. He had stated thus. "I produce herewith a letter written by me to the Manager, By-product (Mech.) on 4.11. 1980 enclosing a statement showing the amount of wages, bonus, acting allowance, rewards and overtime wages paid in excess to Sri S. N. Mohanty, CSE during January 1979 to January 1980 which is taken as M-Exhibit-1 after the same is seen by the CSE, M-Exhibit-1/1 is my signature. This was furnished by ACA-Zone II on the basis of details of attendance given by my office, i.e., the concerned time office. This was furnished by ACA-Zone II on the basis of details of attendance given by my office, i.e., the concerned time office. The information which was given by my office showing the attendance, OT hours worked, acting done, rewards payable to the CSE furnished to Zone-II office for the purpose of calculating the excess amount paid are not available at present with me as the same have been submitted to another enquiry committee in connection with an enquiry being conducted against Sri T. K. Dora, Time Keeper of my office. Without verification of the records, I cannot offhand say what was due to the CSE as his wages and other allowances on different months from January 1979 to January 1980 and what has been paid to him on those months." Examining himself as the sole witness on his behalf, the petitioner had denied the allegations made against him and had asserted that he had come to know about the overpayments at the time he received the charge-sheet and this is what he has also stated in the writ application. 8. The statement of the sole witness examined for the opposite parties would not indicate any material to come to a finding that the petitioner, with the intention of appropriating the moneys to himself, had not brought this fact to the notice of the higher authorities and this was the only charge against him. In the return of the opposite parties, however, a ground has been taken that the petitioner had not complied with Clause 27 of the Standing Orders and he had worked against the interest of the Company. The allegations made against the petitioner would not lead one to a conclusion that by accepting overpayments for which he was not responsible, he had worked against the interest of the Company. In our view. Clause 28(ii) would have no application to the facts of the case as in the absence of materials to show that with the guilty knowledge of causing wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the opposite parties, the petitioner had been guilty of any act of dishonesty in respect of any property of the Company. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that no case had been made out against the petitioner and the charges against him were groundless. 9. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that no case had been made out against the petitioner and the charges against him were groundless. The facts and circumstances of the case do warrant interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and maintained by the appellant authority is quashed, leaving the parties in the circumstances of the case to bear their own costs of this proceeding. G.B. Pattnaik, J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed