JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who was working as Ranger with the Forest Department, has challenged in this petition the impugned order of penalty at Annex. 29 dated 16-11-1988 by which penalty of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect was passed. 2. Learned counsel Shri Mridul for the petitioner vehemently submitted that it is a case of "no evidence." He submitted that the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order of penalty solely on the basis of earlier statement of Izzat Ali recorded by the Mr. Sharma, Enquiry Officer. He submitted that Shri Izzat Ali has not supported the case of department in the departmental enquiry. He, therefore, submits that there was no evidence on which the disciplinary authority could have passed the impugned order of penalty. In support of his submission he relied upon a Supreme Court Judgment in ease of M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workman, reported in AIR 1972 SC 330 : (1972 Lab IC 188) . In M/s. Bareilly Electricity's case (supra) the balance- sheet and profit and loss accounts of the company were produced. The Apex Court held that mere production of it would not amount to the proof of it or of the truth of the entries if the entries were challenged by them. 3. In the case on hand, the allegation against the petitioner was of misappropriating public fund of Rs. 1600/-, Enquiry Officer Shri Sharma recorded the statement of Izzat Ali, wherein, Izzat Ali clearly stated against the petitioner. It is no doubt true that Izzat Ali has not fully supported the case of the department in the domestic enquiry. It is clear from his evidence that he tried to oblige the petitioner, but the fact remains that he could not dispute his earlier statement given to the Enquiry Officer Shri Sharma. Only explanation offered by him was that he was frightened, therefore, he gave such statement. He was afraid of whom? Why he was afraid? No explanation was offered by him. There is a difference between the criminal trial and the departmental enquiry. In a trial before the Court strict proof is required, whereas, in departmental enquiry there is no such provision. In departmental enquiry the department has not to prove the case against the delinquent beyond reasonable doubt, which is required in criminal trial. There is evidence of Izzat Ali. There is a difference between the criminal trial and the departmental enquiry. In a trial before the Court strict proof is required, whereas, in departmental enquiry there is no such provision. In departmental enquiry the department has not to prove the case against the delinquent beyond reasonable doubt, which is required in criminal trial. There is evidence of Izzat Ali. His evidence may be tainted, but this Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority, whereby, the disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty on the basis of statement of Izzat Ali. This Court is exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, it is not permissible for this Court to convert itself into the appellate Court and come to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority was wrong in relying upon the statement of Izzat Ali. 4. Going through the impugned order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority, it is clear that the disciplinary authority has not only considered the evidence of Izzat Ali, but also considered the evidence of enquiry officer Shri Sharma, who conducted the preliminary enquiry and recorded the statement of Izzat Ali. The totality of the evidence in this case leads to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner found to be proved. "In that view of the matter,' this Court would not interfere with such order of penalty. In case of mis-appropriation of public fund the penalty of stoppage of two grade increment with cumulative effect is rather a lenient penalty, therefore, there is no question of interfering with the order of penalty imposed by the authorities. 5. Second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner demanded certain documents which, were not supplied to him, which substantially affected his right of defence in the departmental enquiry. It appears that the petitioner has made demand of several documents. It is also true that all the documents were not supplied to him, but some documents were certainly allowed to be inspected, thereafter, no such grievance was made by the delinquent. That apart nothing turns out on non-supply of documents which were not material. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied sufficient opportunity to defend his case in departmental enquiry. That apart nothing turns out on non-supply of documents which were not material. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner was denied sufficient opportunity to defend his case in departmental enquiry. I may state that the disciplinary authority has considered the evidence before it and in my opinion, the evidence was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the charge was proved against the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority committed any error in passing the order of penalty. 6. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******