JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J.—The petitioner herein was a Manager of the third respondent society. A proceeding was instituted under section 69 (1) of the Co-operative Societies Act as the District Audit Officer reported misappropriation of the funds of the society. On inquiry it is found that several persons including the petitioner were guilty of breach of trust, willful negligence or fraudulently retaining money or other property belonging to the Federation. In so far as the petitioner was concerned, by order dated 16-11-1979 a notice was given to him whereby he was given an opportunity to pay the amounts—in the event of non-recovery from the persons mentioned in the said order. That was followed by another communication dated H-10-1979. Once again an opportunity was given to him under section 69 (2) of the Act. He was called upon to explain his position in person before the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies on 14th November, 1979. The petitioners explanation was considered and an order was passed by the Joint Registrar holding that the petitioner was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000 with an interest at 10% thereon as his explanation was not satisfactory. He was held responsible for the loss caused to the society indirectly through his poor management to the Federation. 2. Petitioner filed an appeal under section 93 (I) (a) to the Secretary Co-operation, During the pendency of the appeal a report was called for from the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society. The report disclosed that a cheque dated 27-3-1976 drawn on Kangra Central Co-operative Bank, Una favoring Shri Ashok Kumar or bearer was encashed by the petitioner herein on 29-3-1976 and the cheque or amount drawn against the cheque was not found entered in the Photostat copy of the cash book entries dated 29-3-1976. That cheque was found to be on the basis of alleged involvement of the petitioner in the embezzlement case of Rs. 8,000. The petitioner was given an opportunity to put forward his contentions against the said report of the Deputy Registrar. Thereafter the Deputy Secretary (Co-operation) considered the appeal and passed an order on 3-3-1987 holding him guilty and directing recovery of the amount from the petitioner alongwith interest at 10% w. e. f. 29-3-1976. 3, It is the said order which is challenged in this writ petition. Thereafter the Deputy Secretary (Co-operation) considered the appeal and passed an order on 3-3-1987 holding him guilty and directing recovery of the amount from the petitioner alongwith interest at 10% w. e. f. 29-3-1976. 3, It is the said order which is challenged in this writ petition. At the out set it can be pointed out that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. There is no error in the procedure adopted by the authority. The petitioner was given as many opportunities as he wanted to give his explanation. Even at the stage of the appeal before the Secretary, the petitioner was given another opportunity by allowing him to make representation against the report of the Deputy Registrar. After considering all the materials on record, the Deputy Secretary came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty. We do not find any error whatever in the order passed by the Deputy Secretary. 4 It is too well settled by now that the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited and it is not an appellate jurisdiction. 5. The Supreme Court as early as in 1963 in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, held : "7.......... The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated, Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution” 6. It is reiterated recently by the Supreme Court in B, C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others. (1995) 6 SCC 749, thus : "Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support there from, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support there from, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/ Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer In a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case." 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to an order passed on 20-5-198? at an earlier stage by this Court in this writ petition. By the said order this Court permitted the petitioner to have inspection of all the records in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate either by himself or by a named expert. The Court also permitted the petitioner to place the report of the export on the record of this case on or before June 5f 1987. Pursuant thereto the petitioner had an opportunity to get the record inspected by his Chartered Accountants and obtain a report from them, The same was filed in this Court on June 3, 1987 and taken on record. 8. Reliance is placed on the contents of the report as well as reference thereto in the reply filed by the respondent. In the reply a reference is made to the said report, a passage is quoted there from. 8. Reliance is placed on the contents of the report as well as reference thereto in the reply filed by the respondent. In the reply a reference is made to the said report, a passage is quoted there from. But that will not enable the petitioner to get over the order passed by the Deputy Secretary which is impugned in this Court If we are to take into account the additional evidence which is produced by the petitioner in the report of the Chartered Accountant it will be converting this writ petition into an appeal That, we are not inclined to do As pointed out already and as laid down by the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of this Court Is limited and judicial review is not the appellate power. As we have found that there is no error whatever in the order of the Deputy Secretary, there is no question of interference of the same on the basis of the report subsequently obtained by the petitioner from the Chartered Accountant. It should be pointed out that the said report is trying to place blames on others, namely, Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Dharam Singh. It is stated in the "reply that the said Dharam Singh is no more and no inquiry can be held at this stage against the said Dharam Singh. In such a situation, we are not inclined to place any reliance whatever on the report of the Chartered Accountant produced by the petitioner herein. There is no merit whatever in the writ petition. Hence the petition is dismissed. No costs. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, all the CMPs. are also dismissed. Petition dismissed.