Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. The petitioner is the Project Officer under the Central Coalfields Limited. In the year 1971, he joined the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited as a Second Class Assistant Manager. While he was posted as Area Manager (Planning), Sijua Area of Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad, he was served with a charge sheet on 3.7.1991 for misconduct as per Annexure 1. The fact is that a huge quantity of coal stock was found short and for such shortage the petitioner and others were charge sheeted. Specifically, the petitioner was charged of misconduct for dishonesty in connection with the business/property of the Company. The specific allegation as per the charge sheet was as follows: Out of the above shortage, you are, therefore, responsible for a shortage of 17662 MT (i.e. 51034-33372 MT) on account of Sri R.N. Mishra during your tenure from 3.10.1989 to 18.1.1990. 2. After submission of show cause notice, the disciplinary authority was not satisfied and enquiry officer was appointed being Shri R.V. Erady, Additional Chief Mining Engineer. After completion of enquiry, report was submitted vide Annexure 3 holding that the charges of misconduct as per Clause 5.1 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Company could not be proved beyond doubt against the petitioner, but in the report if was specifically mentioned in the following way: In this particular case, Sri S.L. Ojha did not carry out his responsibilities as Agent and failed to conduct measurements of coal stock monthly. Had he done so, the exact period of shortage could be exactly determined. 3. After the receipt of the report, Annexure-3, the disciplinary authority dis-agreed with the report of the enquiry officer and vide Annexure 4 held the petitioner guilty of misconduct and a minor punishment of censure was imposed against the petitioner. Against this order, as per the Rule, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the.appellate authority ahd the appellate authority vide order at Annexure 5 confirmed the punishment and guilt as arrived at by the disciplinary authority. 4. Against this order, as per the Rule, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the.appellate authority ahd the appellate authority vide order at Annexure 5 confirmed the punishment and guilt as arrived at by the disciplinary authority. 4. The present writ application has been filed on the ground that the petitioner was not served with a copy of the enquiry report when the disciplinary authority arrived at a finding of guilt differing from the enquiry officers report and that no reasons were given in the_order of the disciplinary authority regarding differing from the report of the enquiry officer. His further submission is that he was never given any hearing while arriving at a decision by the disciplinary authority. All the allegations levelled by the petitioner have been refuted by the respondent by filing counter-affidavit. It has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner was given the hearing before arriving at a decision differing from the report of the Enquiry Officer by the conviction authority. The same fact also is found in the impugned order at Annexure-5 itself. It has further been vehemently stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was never provided opportunity of being heard. It should be mentioned here that this petitioer came to this Court on earlier occasion also by filing a writ petition which was numbered its C.W.J.C. No. 3070 of 1993 (R) with the same grievance and that his promotion matter was not being considered due to such disciplinary proceeding. At the relevant time, the appeal filed by the petitioer was pending. The above mentioned writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide Annexure 6, directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by a reasoned order. That writ petition was disposed of on 1.3.1994. 5. It appears that in view of the order contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, the appellate authority disposed of the appeal and passed the order which is impugned in this wrjt application. About non-receipt of the enquiry officers report, there is no much canvas as it is found on perusal of the. original file of the proceeding that a copy of the enquiry report was made to the petitioner although at the belated stage. About non-receipt of the enquiry officers report, there is no much canvas as it is found on perusal of the. original file of the proceeding that a copy of the enquiry report was made to the petitioner although at the belated stage. It is also found from the original proceeding file that the petitioner was heard by the disciplinary. authority and also by the appellate authority before passing the orders. 6. By supplementary affidavit, the petitioer tried to impress upon this Court by referring Clause 30.1 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules which runs as. follows: The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, record its reason for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. 7. It is the contention of the petitioer that the disciplinary authority in its differing order did not give reasons. On perusal of Annexure 4, the order of the disciplinary authority it is found that although detailed reasons were not given but it was mentioned that allegation and guilt were established having regard to the findings of the Inquiring Authority, the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the petitioer is guilty of misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet levelled against him. 8. I have already mentioned that dereliction of duty of the petitioner has been observed by the Inquiring Authority in its report and that point has been considered for the purpose of coming to a decision against the guilt of thepetitioner. Moreover the appellate authority gave detailed reasons in its order and definitely the order of the. disciplinary authority is merged with the findings of the appellate authority wherein detail reasons are there and as such I am of the view that Clause 30.1 of the Rules of the. Company have been properly complied with. Moreover, a very minor punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioer although charge was of very grievous in nature. Such minor punishment are generally not interfered with unless there is gross irregularity and impropriety in the disciplinary proceeding conducted by the authority on the fact it. On going through the impugned order and the materials on record, I find no force in this writ application and hence the same is dismissed but without cost.