JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - By order of the Managing Director, Tribal Development Co-operative Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar, as communicated in Memo No. 10036/TDCCOL dated 29.11.1989 (Annexure-4), the petitioner was removed from service under Rule 9(9) (i) of the T.D.C.C. Employees Disciplinary Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 1988. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order of removal from service which was dismissed as per order dated 7.6.1990 (Annexure-5). In this writ application, he assails the propriety and correctness of the aforesaid orders, Annexures-4 and 5. 2. The petitioner while serving as shop supervisor under the Tribal Development Co-operative Corporation of Orissa Limited (TDCC) was served with a set of charges and was called upon to submit his written statement of defence (Annexure-1). The petitioner submitted his statement of defence denying the charges (Annexure-2). The charges were enquired into. The Enquiring Officer in his report dated 10.7.1989 (Annexure-3) found him guilty of all the 12 charges. The Disciplinary Authority considered the enquiry report and after concurring with the findings of guilt recorded by the Enquiring Officer passed the impugned order removing the petitioner from service of the T.D.C.C. (Annexure-4). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the enquiry no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. He was not permitted to inspect the relevant records nor was he allowed to adduce oral evidence or cross-examine the Marshalling Officer. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in respect of certain charges, the T.D.C.C. raised dispute and the Arbitrator exonerated the petitioner from the liability and in view of such findings, the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in respect of these charges is unsustainable. Learned counsel further contended that the penalty of removal from service is not commensurate with the delinquency proved against the petitioner and, as a matter of fact, T.D.C.C. dealt with some of the shop assistants/shop supervisors who faced similar charges like that of the petitioner leniently by imposing minor penalties. "His Lordship discussed all the charges one by one" The Enquiry Officer in his conclusion held that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 98,040.00 to the T.D.C.C. He opined that in view of series of instances of misappropriation of funds of T.D.C.C, referred to above, his continuance in service is detrimental to the interest of the T.D.C.C. 12. 98,040.00 to the T.D.C.C. He opined that in view of series of instances of misappropriation of funds of T.D.C.C, referred to above, his continuance in service is detrimental to the interest of the T.D.C.C. 12. Law is well settled that writ Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded in a disciplinary proceeding. It cannot reassess the evidence nor can it reverse the finding on the ground that there is no sufficient material. Adequacy or otherwise of evidence is a matter with which the Writ Court is not concerned. It can interfere with the finding if it is found that the decision is based on no evidence or in the circumstances no reasonable person can come to such a finding. The present is not a case in which we can hold that there is no evidence on record in support of the findings of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Although in respect of four charges separate arbitration dispute cases were filed on behalf of the T.D.C.C. which ended in favour of the petitioner, it is not very much relevant for the purpose as the disciplinary authority can impose appropriate penalty on the basis of the finding of guilt recorded in respect of other charges ( State of Orissa Vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, ). 13. It was contended that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity of hearing in course of the enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, was not able to substantiate the same. He was also not able to show how the petitioner was prejudiced in defending himself in the enquiry. 14. For the reasons stated above, we are not inclined to disturb the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner. He has not been able to make out a case for the writ Court to interfere with the order of removal. 15. Shri Das lastly contended that the order of removal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of charges proved. He submitted that in certain cases of shop supervisors who faced similar charges as that of the petitioner were dealt with leniently by the T.D.C.C. and were let off with minor penalties. The learned counsel also brought to our notice that in respect of four charges separate dispute cases were filed by the T.D.C.C. which were dismissed in absence of evidence of misappropriation which indicates that the finding of guilt recorded is vulnerable. The learned counsel also brought to our notice that in respect of four charges separate dispute cases were filed by the T.D.C.C. which were dismissed in absence of evidence of misappropriation which indicates that the finding of guilt recorded is vulnerable. We may state that the Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, has held that the High Court while exercising the powers of Judicial Review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority shocks the conscience of the Court, it may direct the disciplinary authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. The same opinion was expressed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. G. Ganayutham (Dead) by LRs.. The so-called mitigating circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel are matters which are within the domain of the disciplinary authority or appellate authority to consider and for sufficient and good reasons they can substitute the penalty or removal by imposing some other penalty prescribed under law. We, therefore, direct the appellate authority to consider the decisions of the Co-operative Tribunal and the penalty imposed on some other employees as pointed out by the petitioner and decide whether in view of those circumstances, the penalty of removal is disproportionate and whether the same should be substituted by a lesser punishment. The appellate authority is directed to complete such exercise within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. 16. The writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradipta Ray, J. 17. I agree.