G. N. RAY, J. ( 1 ) - This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge in Civil Rule No. 2882 (and) of 1981. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of punishment imposed on the writ petitioner respondent. ( 2 ) IT may be noted here that the writ petitioner respondent No. 1, Manindra Kumar Ghosh also preferred a cross-objection and/or cross-appeal against the judgment, inter alia, on the ground that the disciplinary proceeding was not at all maintainable at the instance of the appellant company and there was no occasion to initiate any disciplinary proceeding against him by the appellant company. ( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Financial Controller of Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited. The petitioner was transferred on deputation to National Newsprint and Paper Mills Ltd. , at Nepanagar and be worked there from 4th June, 1976 to 18th October, 1977 and hereafter he was brought back to parent organisation viz. Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited. Thereafter he was transferred to Cachar Paper Project. In June, 1977, when the writ petitioner Manindra Kumar Ghosh was on deputation to the National Newsprint and Paper Mills Limited at Nepanagar, he had to go to Indore and he had stayed at the Central Hotel from 4th June, 1977 to 7th June, 1977. With prior intimation and with permission of the Production Manager of the said Rational Newsprint and Paper Mills Limited. the writ petitioner had taken his wife, daughter and mother-in-law along with him. The writ petitioner had travelled in company's car for such official tour. It is an admitted position that the petitioner submitted the bill for the hotel charge for Rs. 272/- during his period of stay at Indore and obtained such payment from the company. Later on, the writ petitioner caused an enquiry from the hotel administration as to whether or not the said bill was charged only towards his lodging charges without making any separate charge for the other members of his family and on being informed by the hotel administration that in the said bill both the charges of his occupation and the occupation of his guests were included, he refunded the amount which was chargeable for the guests of Sri Ghosh viz. the wife, daughter and mother-in-law accompanying him and staying in the same room of the hotel. On account of drawing excess amount from the company to cover up the cost of lodging of wife, daughter and mother-in-law of the petitioner, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner and in the said disciplinary proceeding it was found that the petitioner had deliberately overdrawn the accommodation charges for his wife, daughter and mother-in-law in the said hotel during his official visit at Indore, although he was not entitled to draw such accommodation charges for the members of his family, The disciplinary authority was of the view that although the payment was not heavy be since the petitioner was a Financial Controller of the Company and held a very responsible position, such attempt to defraud the company on account of charges payable by him for stay of the members of his family should not be treated lightly and a punishment of dismissal was passed against him. Such order of dismissal was challenged in the writ proceeding and the writ petitioner contended that at the relevant time he was on deputation to another company and as such Hindusthan Paper Construction. Limited had no authority or jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceeding and impose punishment on him. It was also contended by the petitioner that as a consolidated bill was submitted by hotel, the petitioner was under the impression that when a room had been occupied by him along with the members of his family, no separate accommodation charge was required to be paid on account of lodging of such members of his family. He therefore, submitted the bill for payment and he received such payment from the company. The petitioner also contended that being a Financial Controller, he was very busy with the official works of accounting and after such works were completed, he on his own, caused an enquiry as to whether or not for the occupation of the members of his family accompanying him, the hotel chases for such guests were to be paid. On being informed by the hotel administration that besides the charges for his occupancy, the guests were also charged and the rate for accommodation charges for the guest was indicated, he on his own, refunded the amount (Rs. 100/-) which was payable by him on account of boarding charges of the accompanying members of his family. On being informed by the hotel administration that besides the charges for his occupancy, the guests were also charged and the rate for accommodation charges for the guest was indicated, he on his own, refunded the amount (Rs. 100/-) which was payable by him on account of boarding charges of the accompanying members of his family. The petitioner contended that in such circumstances, there was no intention to defraud the company and even if any over payment was received by him from the company, on account of hotel charges due to bona fide mistake he, on his own, had refunded to the company the excess amount drawn by him. It was contended by the writ petitioner that without any just cause and out of malice such proceeding had been initiated and in the facts of the case, the proceeding and the punishment imposed in such proceeding should be quashed. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge, however, came to the ending that as the petitioner was an employee of Hindusthan Paper Construction Limited which is a Government Company and also a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, the disciplinary proceeding could be initiated by the Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited, but the learned trial Judge held that in the facts of the case there was no mens reason the part of the petitioner in drawing any over payment from the. company and the petitioner had initially drawn the entire amount under the hotel bill without knowing that a part of the said bill could not be charged by him because the same was also on account of accommodation. of the accompanying members of his family. The learned trial Judge was of the view that the petitioner on his own having caused enquiry from the hotel and having refunded the excess amount drawn by him earlier, did not deserve the punishment of dismissal in any event. The learned trial Judge, inter alia, came to the ending that the overdrawal was only for a sum of Rs. 100/- which the petitioner after ascertaining from the hotel authorities, bad refunded before initiation of any disciplinary proceeding. The learned trial Judge, inter alia, came to the ending that the overdrawal was only for a sum of Rs. 100/- which the petitioner after ascertaining from the hotel authorities, bad refunded before initiation of any disciplinary proceeding. The learned trial Judge was of the view that it was most unlikely that a Financial Controller of a Public Sector Undertaking should deliberately try to cheat his employers by charging excess T. A. Bill and thereafter refund the amount voluntarily when such over payment could easily be detected. The learned Judge held that there was no justification on the part of the respondent company to initiate any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner almost. two years after the alleged incident and imposition of the punishment of removal from service was wholly unjustified. ( 5 ) MR. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant company, has contended that it is an admitted position that the delinquent officer had drawn the T. A. Bill although the amount drawn by him was not payable to him on account of official tour. He has contended that the bill initially submitted by the hotel administration shown that separately the amount was charged for his occupation and for occupation of the members of his family but at his instance the separate drawing of bill for. his occupation and for the occupation of the accompanying members had been charged and a consolidated bill had been made. Mr. Ghosh has contended that although no disciplinary proceeding was initiated before the refund of the excess amount drawn by the delinquent officer, such refund by itself, will not absolve the delinquent officer of the misconduct of drawing and receiving excess payment from the company knowingly. Mr. Ghosh has contended that the delinquent officer having scented that his misconduct of drawing excess amount would come to light he refunded the excess amount later on. Mr. Ghosh has very strongly contended that the employees of the hotel were examined in the disciplinary proceeding by the company and such employees had stated that the bill was changed at the instance of the petitioner. Mr. Ghosh has contended that the delinquent officer was an employee of Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited and simply because he was on deputation at the relevant time it cannot be contended that the company could not initiate disciplinary proceeding against the employee of the company. Mr. Ghosh has contended that the delinquent officer was an employee of Hindusthan Paper Corporation Limited and simply because he was on deputation at the relevant time it cannot be contended that the company could not initiate disciplinary proceeding against the employee of the company. The disciplinary proceeding therefore was validly initiated by the company. Mr. Ghosh has further contended that all reasonable opportunities of being heard were given to the delinquent officer. Accordingly, the disciplinary proceeding was not vitiated on the ground of not affording a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent officer to defend. Mr. Ghosh has also submitted that it is not at all necessary to take into account about the quantum of over-payment involved in the misconduct of the delinquent officer. Once the factum of deliberate overdrawal is established, it must be left to the discretion of the punishing authority as to what punishment should be imposed. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that the delinquent officer was the Financial Controller of the Company and extreme trust is required to be reposed on him. If such responsible officer fails to maintain the trust reposed on him and draws an excess amount to defraud the company, no lenient view should be taken and the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing the punishment of removal from service. Such punishment cannot be: held to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against the delinquent officer. Mr. Ghosh has contended that right of appeal is a creature of statute and no one has inherent right to make an appeal. If under the conditions of service, there is no provision of appeal from the order of punishment, the order of punishment cannot fail on the ground of absence of the provision of appeal. Similarly, if the punishing authority and the appellate authority are the same, the order of punishment does not become ipso facto invalid on the ground that the same authority cannot sit on appeal over its own decision. In support of his contention, Mr. Ghosh has referred to a Bench decision of Kerala High Court made in the case of K. C. Chandrasekharan vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1964 Kerala 87. It has been held in the said decision that whether opportunity awarded to a Government servant in a particular case is reasonable depends upon the circumstances of each case. Ghosh has referred to a Bench decision of Kerala High Court made in the case of K. C. Chandrasekharan vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1964 Kerala 87. It has been held in the said decision that whether opportunity awarded to a Government servant in a particular case is reasonable depends upon the circumstances of each case. A right of appeal is not a necessary postulate of an opportunity of showing cause. The fact that the rules provided for an appeal to Government in case the Government servant is punished by an authority subordinate to it does not mean that the Government cannot itself undertake the disciplinary proceedings against its officers. Mr. Ghosh has also referred to a decision of the Delhi High Court made in the case of S. C. Gupta vs. Food Corporation of India reported in 1984 (2) Service Law Journal, 392. In the said case, punishment was imposed by the Board of Directors although the Managing Director was the initiating authority. Enquiry Officer's report was submitted to the Board and Board took the decision. It was held that the Board is the highest authority of this public service corporation. It is higher than the Managing Director. The Board therefore could impose the penalty and the petitioner could not. complain of any prejudice against the Board. The contention that the petitioner's right of appeal had been taken away because the Board had passed the order of punishment was of no consequence because the right of appeal is a creature of statute and there could not be any appeal from the decision of the Board in a corporate structure. Mr. Ghosh has also contended that if a disciplinary proceeding is initiated by an authority who is also one of the members of the Board which ultimately imposed the penalty it cannot be said that the Board was biased against the delinquent appellant. In support of this contention, he has referred to a decision of the Madras High Court made in the case of K. Chelliah vs. Chairman, Industrial Finance Corporation India and Anr. In the said case, the Chairman of the Board passed an order of punishment and when ande punishment came up for consideration before the Board, the Chairman also took part in the deliberations. It was held that no bias could. In the said case, the Chairman of the Board passed an order of punishment and when ande punishment came up for consideration before the Board, the Chairman also took part in the deliberations. It was held that no bias could. be presumed simply because the Chairman of the Board took part in the deliberations when the case of delinquent employee was being considered by the Board. Mr. Ghosh has contended that if a charge of misconduct is established, the writ court should net interfere with tire quantum of punishment. The quantum of punishment is the matter for consideration by the punishing authority. It was only in a very rare and exceptional case, interference had been made by the Supreme Court against the imposition of punishment on the ground that such punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the. trivia1ity of the charges leveled against the delinquent employee and no reasonable man could pass such an order. The instant case is, however, entirely different and considering the position held by the delinquent officer, the misconduct was required to be considered with a serious view and the order of punishment was quite reasonable and just in the facts of the case. Mr. Ghosh has contended that the learned trial Judge had noted that no criminal case was instituted against the delinquent employee because in the facts. of the case such criminal case could not be established. But without any just basis the departmental proceeding had been initiated for the alleged offence for which no criminal case could be instituted. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that on the charge leveled against the delinquent officer a criminal case could have been instituted, but simply because a criminal case was not instituted against him, the disciplinary authority was not precluded from initiating a disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Ghosh has, therefore, contended that the learned trial Judge was wrong in quashing the order of punishment and the appeal; therefore, should be allowed by dismissing the writ petition. ( 6 ) MR. B. N. Sen, the learned council appearing for the writ petitioner respondent has submitted that there was no evidence to establish that the delinquent received the hotel bill and had any occasion to notice that there was separate billing for his accommodation and the accommodation for the members of his family. ( 6 ) MR. B. N. Sen, the learned council appearing for the writ petitioner respondent has submitted that there was no evidence to establish that the delinquent received the hotel bill and had any occasion to notice that there was separate billing for his accommodation and the accommodation for the members of his family. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the bill was paid by his wife and the office only submitted the bill to the department for drawing T. A. Bill He has referred to the deposition of the hotel employees and stated that it was not stated by any of the employees that at the instance of the petitioner the bill had been changed and a consolidated bill was prepared. Mr. Sen has contended that in the departmental proceeding the Evidence Act is not applicable very strictly but the very basis of the charge made against the delinquent officer that he knowingly drew excess amount from the company by presenting a wrong bill changed at his instance has not been established by any cogent evidence. Mr. Sen has submitted that even in a disciplinary proceeding, surmise and conjecture, cannot substitute requirement of proof and. no punishment can be imposed merely on surmise and conjecture. Mr. Sen has also submitted that it is the positive case of the delinquent officer that on the basis of the bill presented by the hotel, T. A. Bill was drawn and he was not aware that when in the same room the accompanying members of the family also stayed, the hotel charges are required to be paid separately for the principal occupier booking the room and the accompanying members of the family. Mr. Sen has submitted that the company failed to establish that any discrete enquiry was being made against the delinquent officer for drawing over-payment as a T. A. Bill and coming to learn of such discrete enquiry, the concerned officer became alert and refunded the excess payment drawn by him. In the instant case, there is no such evidence. Mr. Sen has submitted that the company failed to establish that any discrete enquiry was being made against the delinquent officer for drawing over-payment as a T. A. Bill and coming to learn of such discrete enquiry, the concerned officer became alert and refunded the excess payment drawn by him. In the instant case, there is no such evidence. On the contrary, before any allegation was made and any enquiry was initiated against the delinquent officer about drawing of excess amount, the concerned officer, on his own, caused an enquiry in the hotel and the moment he ascertained that the consolidated bills had two parts, one, for his lodging charge and for other for the lodging charge for the accompanying members, he on his own had refunded the said amount. Such conduct demonstrates a very high degree of integrity on the part of the delinquent officer. Mr. Sen has contended that it is an admitted case that the delinquent officer, on prior intimation and with permission from the superior authority, had traveled in company's car by taking his wife, daughter, mother-in-law with him. Hence the tour made by the delinquent officer accompanying the members of his family was known by the company from the very beginning. It will be absolutely unusual that in such circumstances, the delinquent officer would deliberately try to draw an excess amount of Rs. 100/- only payable towards the lodging charges of the accompanying members of his family in his T. A. Bill, when the factum of drawing over-payment was likely to be detected at any moment. Mr. Sen has contended that the disciplinary authority certainly had a discretion in deciding the quantum of punishment but such decision should not be arbitrary and capricious without any reference to the facts revealed in the disciplinary proceeding and the offence alleged and proved. Any arbitrary action is antithesis to rule of law and the Court of law cannot uphold such arbitrary action. Any arbitrary action is antithesis to rule of law and the Court of law cannot uphold such arbitrary action. He has, however, submitted that in the infant case, since the very fact that the delinquent officer was aware from the very beginning that the hostel bill was not only for his occupation but it: was also for the occupation of the members of his family for whom separate charges were made, was not established by any clear evidence to that effect, the very basis of misconduct cannot but fail and the punishment on the charge made but not established cannot survive. ( 7 ) AFTER considering the respective contentions of the learned counsels for the parties it appears to us that Mr. Ghosh, the learned counsel for the appellant company is justified in his contention that quantum of punishment is the discretion of the punishing authority and except in an exceptional case where punishment cannot but shock the conscience of the court and appears to be wholly perverse and unreasonable, interference by the writ court on the quantum of punishment is not wanted. The gravity of the offence should be judged in the facts of a case. If the misconduct alleged against the delinquent officer is accepted to have been established, the punishment for removal from service cannot be held to unreasonable or arbitrary of shockingly harsh because the delinquent officer was Financial Controller of the Company and a very high degree of integrity was expected of him. Mr. Ghosh is also justified in his submission that if under the conditions of service, there is no provision for appeal or the punishing authority is also authorised to consider the case as an appellate or revisional authority, the provision for punishment does not become bad for want of proper appeal or revision because right of appeal is not automatic but is subject to provisions for such appeal in the conditions of service. We are also inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Ghosh that the delinquent officer being an employee of the Hindusthan Paper Construction Ltd. , the said company was competent to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him despite the fact that at the relevant time he was on deputation to another company. We are also inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Ghosh that the delinquent officer being an employee of the Hindusthan Paper Construction Ltd. , the said company was competent to initiate disciplinary proceeding against him despite the fact that at the relevant time he was on deputation to another company. But it does not appear to us that in the instant case it has been established by any cogent evidence that at the instance of the delinquent officer the hotel bill was changed and the delinquent officer was aware from the very beginning that the hotel had charged separately for his accommodation and accommodation of accompanying members of his family and deliberately he received over-payment for an unlawful gain. Our attention has been drawn to the depositions of the hotel employees in the disciplinary proceeding but we have failed to note that there is any deposition to the effect that the delinquent officer after noting that he and his guests were separately changed for stay in the hotel had got the bill changed by making it a consolidated bill. It may be noted in this connection that the delinquent officer had contended that the bill was actually paid by his wife and he was not aware that the hotel had charged separately for his accommodation and accommodation of the accompanying members of his family. It is an admitted position that before any discrete enquiry was held against the delinquent officer or be fore any complaint about over-payment was received he, on his own, caused enquiry in the hotel and after ascertaining the correct position in the matter of billing for boarding charges, refunded a sum of Rs. 100/- which was not receivable by him on account of the said T. A. Bill. In our view, Mr. Sen is justified in his submission that although Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in a disciplinary proceeding, the offence or misconduct alleged against a delinquent employee must be established by some cogent evidence by which objectively a finding can be made about commission of the offence or-misconduct alleged and surmise or conjecture cannot substitute the requirement of proof. Sen is justified in his submission that although Evidence Act is not strictly applicable in a disciplinary proceeding, the offence or misconduct alleged against a delinquent employee must be established by some cogent evidence by which objectively a finding can be made about commission of the offence or-misconduct alleged and surmise or conjecture cannot substitute the requirement of proof. In the facts of the case it is highly unlikely that when the delinquent officer with notice of the company had traveled in company' car with the members of his family and stayed together in the hotel; he would try to overdraw a paltry sum of Rs. 100/- on account of hotel bill at the risk of being detected at any time. The conduct of the delinquent officer in causing enquiry in the hotel on his own about the correct position in billing and refunding the over-payment without being asked to do so only indicates a sense of integrity and honesty. It is not the case that on the materials on record one view or the other can be taken and the punishing authority has taken a view which is also a possible view. In such circumstances, the writ Court, cannot appraise the evidence and take a view in preference to the view taken by the disciplinary authority. But when a finding is made by the disciplinary authority that on the basis of any evidence but on surmise and conjecture such finding is a perverse finding and/or no finding in law and the writ court will be quite competent to interfere with such perverse finding. As in the instant case the finding about the alleged misconduct of the delinquent officer has in fact rested in the realm of surmise and conjecture and not on the basis of any cogent and positive evidence such finding cannot be sustained. Accordingly no punishment can be imposed on the delinquent officer on account of the charges leveled against him. The impugned disciplinary proceeding and the punishment imposed in such proceeding are, therefore; quashed; The delinquent officer, should be deemed to be in service all along and he is entitled to salaries and other emoluments as Financial Controller of the Company after adjusting any payment made to him during the pendency of the writ proceedings and this appeal. The impugned disciplinary proceeding and the punishment imposed in such proceeding are, therefore; quashed; The delinquent officer, should be deemed to be in service all along and he is entitled to salaries and other emoluments as Financial Controller of the Company after adjusting any payment made to him during the pendency of the writ proceedings and this appeal. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal are accordingly disposed of but there will be no order as to costs. ( 8 ) AFTER the judgment was delivered in Court today, a prayer for stay of operation of the judgment was made by the learned counsel for the appellant company. In the facts of the case, the prayer is refused. S. K. Hazari, J. I agree. Appeal and cross-objection disposed of.