JUDGMENT P. D. Desai, C. J.—The petitioner was an employee of the respondent-Insurance Company and was holding the post of Inspector at Solan at the material time/ A charge-sheet, dated May 25, I9i3 Annexure P-4, was served upon him for his alleged misconduct in respect of five matters covered thereby. The Inquiry Officer, who was appointed to hold the inquiry under the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975, submitted his report, dated December 31, 19^4, Annexure P-7, to the disciplinary authority exonerating the petitioner in respect of three heads of charges (2, 3 and 5), but holding him guilty in respect of the other two (1 and 4) and finding that the proof of those charges established that he was "acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company and commission of acts which amount to criminal offence involving moral turpitude". The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and ordered the dismissal of the petitioner from service by an order passed on January 12, 1^85 Annexure P-8. An appeal preferred by the petitioner to the appellate authority failed and was dismissed on August 7, 1985, Annexure P-10. A memorial presented to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was rejected on, May 22, 1986 vide Annexure P-12, with a modification as to the nature of penalty which was converted from dismissal into removal from service. Hence the present writ petition. 2. Although several grounds have been raised in the petition, only a few were urged at the preliminary hearing of the petition and these grounds only are being dealt with which were urged for consideration. 3. The first submission circuled round Charge No, 1 which reads as follows : "It was found that Mr, R. S. Mehta, was collecting motor salvage at Solan as per survey reports. Salvage collecting letters were sent by him to Chandigarh D. O. Motor Claim Deptt. previous salvage was sold for the period upto 31-7-1982. Salvage collect ed by him after 1-8-1982 to 3-2-1983 was not found in his possession when checked. During this period salvage collection letters were already sent by him to D. O. Chandigarh as a taken of salvage receipt. When salvage was physically checked with him on 3 2-1983, no salvage was found in his possession." It was urged : 1. That the charge was vague, 2. During this period salvage collection letters were already sent by him to D. O. Chandigarh as a taken of salvage receipt. When salvage was physically checked with him on 3 2-1983, no salvage was found in his possession." It was urged : 1. That the charge was vague, 2. That though no allegation was contained in the charge to the effect that the petitioner was collecting the salvage without any authority, the Inquiry Officer gave a finding to that effect and found the petitioner guilty of such extraneous matter and the said report having been accepted by the disciplinary authority, the order of penalty based upon such ultra vires finding and the confirmation of the penalty by the higher authorities is vitiated, and (3) That although the salvage in question was still available and shown to the Inquiry Officer, the defence version in that regard was arbitrarily rejected.’ 4. The submission that the charge was vague cannot be accepted. The charge read as a whole makes it clear that it related to the salvage which was collected and lying with the petitioner as per his own letters addressed to the Motor Claims Department at the Chandigarh Divisional Office. The period in respect of which the salvage was not found in his possession is also specified in the charge. There is, therefore, no scope for making any grievance as to the vagueness of the charge. 5. True it is that there is no specific allegation in the charge that the petitioner was collecting the salvage without due authority and that still a finding to that effect has been recorded by the Inquiry Officer and further that the said finding appears to have been taken note of by different authorities. However, the gravamen of the charge against the petitioner under this head was that the salvage collected by him between August 1, 1982 and Feburary 3, 1983, was not found in his possession when the physical checking took place on February 3, 1983. This precise charge is held to have been duly proved on the basis of the relevant evidence. However, the gravamen of the charge against the petitioner under this head was that the salvage collected by him between August 1, 1982 and Feburary 3, 1983, was not found in his possession when the physical checking took place on February 3, 1983. This precise charge is held to have been duly proved on the basis of the relevant evidence. Even granting, therefore, that the matter relating to the collection of the salvage without due authority was not in issue and that, therefore, the finding on that issue was beyond the scope of the inquiry, the independent or severable finding relating to the mis-demeanour of the petitioner arising out of the n6n- existence of the salvage with him at the time of the physical verification, which was the true basis of the charge, is not thereby vitiated. It is settled law that an administrative or quasi judicial order based on several grounds, some of which are found to be non-existent or irrelevant, could still be sustained, if the court is satisfied that the authority would have passed the order on the basis of the other relevant and existent grounds to the exclusion of the irrelevant and con-existent grounds and that such exclusion would not have affected the ultimate opinion of decision. [See State of Maharashtra v. B. K. Takkamore, AIR 1967 SC 1353 and Madhukar s/o. M. Lapalikar v. D. V. Hingwe and others, (1987) 1 SCC 164. In the present[case, while granting that in the course of discussion of the material bearing on charge No. 1, an extraneous factor has entered into the consideration of the Inquiry Officer, we are not satisfied that the said factor has weighed so much with the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority that in its absence the finding of guilt on the said charge would not have been returned or recorded or that such finding would not have been recorded on the basis of the other relevant and existent factors. Apart from this, the petitioner has been found guilty of the other charge, viz. charge No. 4, and the said charge by itself is grave enough. Apart from this, the petitioner has been found guilty of the other charge, viz. charge No. 4, and the said charge by itself is grave enough. We are, therefore, also satisfied that even if the finding on the first charge had been wholly excluded from consideration, the disciplinary authority would still have come to the same conclusion as to the misconduct of the petitioner and in view of the gravity of the said charge, the penalty of removal would have been imposed on the petitioner. 6, The petitioner could not satisfy the Inquiry Officer with regard to the identity and existence of the salvage when it was inspected by him on November 10, 1984 and his defence that he was still in possession of the salvage was, therefore, not found acceptable. This raises a pure question of fact which this Court cannot enquire into. Besides, the Inquiry Officer has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the identity of the salvage was not established. There is nothing arbitrary about the same. 7. The second submission was that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was not commensurate with the guilt which was found to have been established and that the petitioner deserves to be treated more leniently. We are of the view that this submission is not available on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Both the charges which are held to have been established against the petitioner, individually and severally, throw doubt on his integrity. The Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority have both found that the petitioner was guilty of dishonesty and fraud and that he had acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the respondent-Company and that his acts omission and commission amounted to a Criminal offence involving moral turpitude. In view of such findings, the penalty of removal from service cannot be regarded as arbitrary or excessive or grossly disproportionate to the misconduct held proved. For the foregoing reasons, there being no substance in the writ petition, it is summarily rejected. Petition dismissed.