O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) WHILE working as Senior Assistant in Terminal Office. Marketing Division of Indian Oil corporation, at Allahabad, the petitioner Khan Asif Abdulla (P. F, 18654) claimed reimbursement of his expenses to the tune of Rs. 60. 846, on the basis of forged bills on Form P. A. 21, and thereby committed alleged acts of fraud, forgery and dishonesty in connection with the Corporations business, or. property. After preliminary vigilance enquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet dated 25. 5. 1992, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, was served upon him. A committee of enquiry consisting of two members was constituted. Enquiry report was submitted by the Committee on 4. 10,1993 holding that the charge against the petitioner stands proved. The disciplinary authority, namely, Deputy General Manager (O)issued a notice dated 20. 10. 1993 (Annexure-27 to the writ petition) to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted a reply to the notice on 26. 11. 1993, which is contained in Annexure-28 to the writ petition, and further submitted additional reply on 18. 2. 1994. The disciplinary authority passed an order dated 16. 5. 1994, annexure-29 to the writ petition, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Executive Director, Northern Region. New Delhi. The appeal was dismissed on 4. 10. 1994 (Annexure-31 to the petition ). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review petition under Rule 12. 9. 1 of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules which authorises the Chairman of the Corporation or any officer not below the rank of Head of Department to revise any order passed by the authority subordinate to him or to reconsider an earlier order passed on an appeal by him or his predecessor if on a subsequent date a fresh light is thrown in the case. By order dated 23. 2. 1995, Annexure-33 to the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that the aforesaid rule 12. 9. 1 does not apply to him. It appears that no orders on the review petition were passed but subsequently, on 22. 8. 1995, the review petition was rejected, a copy of which is contained in annexure-l to the affidavit filed with the amendment application. The result is that the petitioner stands finally dismissed from service. 9. 1 does not apply to him. It appears that no orders on the review petition were passed but subsequently, on 22. 8. 1995, the review petition was rejected, a copy of which is contained in annexure-l to the affidavit filed with the amendment application. The result is that the petitioner stands finally dismissed from service. ( 2 ) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the procedure adopted by the Committee of Enquiry ; certain inferences drawn by them, and has asserted that he was denied the opportunity of examining the witnesses in defence and consequently the report of enquiry is bad in law and has to be set aside. It is also urged that the disciplinary authority/appellate authority/chairman, (who is empowered to review orders of his subordinates), have not applied their mind judiciously to the matter and have passed cryptic orders in a most cursory, casual and perfunctory manner. ( 3 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri V. K. Shukla. learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. R. G. Padia, on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation as well as other respondents. Dr. Padia repelled the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. ( 4 ) TO begin with, it may be observed that 1 have thoroughly scrutinised the enquiry report submitted by the Committee comprising of Sarvshri H. J. Sharma and K. K. Kakar. members and find that it is an elaborate report which is based on tangible and concrete facts. The procedure as prescribed for enquiry has been followed and more than due and reasonable opportunity was granted to the petitioner at every stage. The enquiry report cannot be faulted on any ground whatsoever. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was deprived from examining his two material witnesses in defence as the enquiry was being conducted at Delhi and the department was not prepared to pay the travelling allowances to the witnesses to defray expenses to and fro Delhi to Allahabad. This submission is wide off the mark for one simple reason that it was the duty and responsibility of the petitioner to examine his witnesses at the place of enquiry and the department was not obliged to shoulder the responsibility of travelling expenses of the witnesses of the petitioner. This submission is wide off the mark for one simple reason that it was the duty and responsibility of the petitioner to examine his witnesses at the place of enquiry and the department was not obliged to shoulder the responsibility of travelling expenses of the witnesses of the petitioner. Moreover, the witnesses sought to be examined were not material and their testimony was not germane to the enquiry in hand. As a matter of fact, it was a case in which the petitioner had no defence to lead as the enquiry was confined to the preparation of forged and fictitious reimbursement bills on form P. A. 21 which were, of necessity, required to be submitted for approval from the authority in Delhi while the petitioner forged the signature and got the bills approved locally. ( 5 ) THE other submission to challenge the report of enquiry made on behalf of the petitioner is that the enquiry committee has drawn unwarranted inference that the bills were forged by the petitioner himself and on the basis of the possibility only the petitioner could not be held responsible in the matter. In this connection, reference was made to sub-paragraph (ix) of paragraph 17 which relates to E. Cs. conclusion of the enquiry report and read as follows : " (ix) After taking into the above factors Into account, E. C. has reasons to believe that P. A. 21 forma bill for reimbursement of medical expenses as per exhibits P-4/1, have been forged at allahabad Terminal and possibly by the person, who was handling the medical bills at the terminal during above period that is Sh. Khan Asif Abdulla himself. " ( 6 ) THE submission of the learned counsel is otiose for one simple reason that it was the petitioner who himself has to derive the benefit of the payment of money on the basis of the reimbursement of bills. He had handled the bills at all the times and levels. No other person had the occasion or the opportunity to forge the bills nor any other person could have been benefitted by forging the bills as on the basis of the forged bills no person other than the petitioner could have received the payments. Therefore, under all die circumstances, it was the petitioner who had forged the bills in order to take payment of the bills of reimbursement by forging them. Therefore, under all die circumstances, it was the petitioner who had forged the bills in order to take payment of the bills of reimbursement by forging them. In other words, if any person who could have committed forgery, it was the petitioner and none-else and, therefore, the enquiry committee was justified in drawing the inference taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the case. Moreover, the above conclusion of the enquiry committee cannot be read in isolation. This conclusion has to be read in conjunction with other relevant findings preceding the said observation. The enquiry committee has rightly come to the conclusion that it was the petitioner who had claimed medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs. 60. 846 on the basis of forged bills for reimbursement of medical expenses on form p. A. 21. ( 7 ) SRI V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that an unsavoury feature of the case is that none of the authorities, i. e. , disciplinary authority, appellate authority or reviewing authority had applied their judicial mind in adopting the enquiry report as it is and have passed orders in the most mechanical manner with the result that the petitioner has been subjected to manifest injustice, inasmuch as the various pleas taken by him in the reply to the show-cause notice, appeal and review petition were not fairly considered. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner perhaps is based on the pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Ram Chander v. Union of India, (1986) 3 SCC J03.-M. P. Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (1966) 1 SCR 466 ; A. L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation India Ltd. , (1984) 3 SCC 316 and R. P. Bjatt v. Union of India, (1986) 2 SCC 651 . In responding to the above contention on behalf of the petitioner, Dr. R. G. Padia, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rom Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2043 ; s. N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 ; Som Dull Dutta v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 414 and State of Bikaner and Jaipur and others v. Prabhu Dayal Grover, (1995) 6 SCC 279 . It was maintained that it was not necessary for the disciplinary authority or the appellate or reviewing authority to discuss the evidence and give reasons far their findings, if they had agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer/committee, A reference was also made to a decision of a division Bench of this Court dated 28. 7. 1997 in Writ Petition No. 24409 of 1997, Thakur Das bhaskar v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others, and the decision dated 14. 5. 1996 in writ Petition Wo. 33224 of 1990. Surendra Pratap Singh v. Ballia Kshettri Gramin Bank, Ballia and another. ( 8 ) TO avoid prolixity, it is not necessary to discuss the various rulings on the point. The law as it stands is that the disciplinary authority or for that matter the appellate authority or the reviewing authority are not obligated to give reasons in case of concurrence with the enquiry officer/committee. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority had agreed with the report of the enquiry committee and in Annexure-27 which is a show-cause notice dated 20. 10. 1993, it has been specifically mentioned that the disciplinary authority, after taking into account all facts/merits of the case, and agreeing that the findings of the enquiry committee proposes to inflict the penalty of dismissal on the petitioner. It was also mentioned that the proceedings and findings of the enquiry committee have been carefully considered by the disciplinary authority. In the impugned order of dismissal dated 16. 5. 1994, Annexure-29 to the writ petition, the disciplinary authority has clearly mentioned that the reply of the petitioner to the show-cause notice has been carefully considered by him vls-a-vts other papers and factors of the case and the same has not been found to be satisfactory; since the petitioner had not brought any new points which would have warranted any change in the penalty, the earlier proposal of punishment to dismiss him from service was to stand. Similarly, the appellate authority in order dated 4. 10. 1994 Annexure-31 to the writ petition has mentioned that he has considered the appeal carefully with reference to the papers and the facts of the case and since no new facts or extenuating circumstances warranting reconsideration of penalty of the dismissal has been put forward, the appeal was dismissed. Similarly, the appellate authority in order dated 4. 10. 1994 Annexure-31 to the writ petition has mentioned that he has considered the appeal carefully with reference to the papers and the facts of the case and since no new facts or extenuating circumstances warranting reconsideration of penalty of the dismissal has been put forward, the appeal was dismissed. The reviewing authority after taking into consideration the facts of the case and scrutiny of the charges levelled and proved against the petitioner found no justification to interfere with the order of appellate authority upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from service. ( 9 ) IN the light of the above facts, it cannot be said that the various authorities at different levels had not examined the entire proceedings and applied their mind thereto before concurring with the report of the enquiry committee or the penalty and punishment of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. The orders passed by the aforesaid authorities cannot, therefore, be challenged or assailed on the ground that they have not recorded reasons in their respective orders. Since it was a case of concurrence with the report of the enquiry committee, it was not required of the authorities to record reasons for their coming to the conclusion to dismiss the petitioner from service in view of the various pronouncements of Honble Supreme Court on which the reliance has been placed by Dr. R. G. Padia. ( 10 ) THE writ petition, therefore, turns out to be without any merits and substance. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs is passed. .