P. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 31-12-87 passed after holding the departmental proceedings as well as the appellate order dated 12-8-88 passed in appeal filed against the order dated 31-12-87. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was chargesheeted on 22-8-81. In the chargesheet two charges were levelled against the petitioner. The chargesheet is contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The first charge was to the effect that the petitioner on 6-7-81 attacked Sri V. P. Joshi, Assistant regional Accounts Officer who was holding inquiry against Sri S. B. Jauhari, Bus-Conductor on the charges of corruption and embezzlement against the said Bus-conductor, in order to get the said inquiry dropped. The second charge was that on 15-7-81 petitioner alongwith two other persons caught Sri Joshi, abused him and extended the threat to kill him saying that Sri Joshi was taking special interest in the matter of the said Conductor S. B. Jauhari. ( 3 ) IN support of the charges the names of the witnesses were shown in the chargesheet and the petitioner was required to submit his reply by 10-9-81 to the Inquiry Officer. Regional Manager, upsrtc, Moradabad was appointed as the Inquiry Officer in the matter. The petitioner was also offered to inspect, the documents which were annexed in support of the chargesheet. The Inquiry officer considered the statement of Sri Abdul Wahid, Head Clerk, Nainital, Sri D. N, Pandey, Sri g. P, Chaudhary, Office Assistant-II, Sri Mahendra Steno in support of the charges on 17-7-81 and the petitioner was required to give his explanation by 10-9-81 and to led evidence or to produce any witness in his defence by that date. ( 4 ) SINCE the petitioner did not respond to the aforesaid order of the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry officer vide his letter dated 16-11-81 informed the petitioner that he had not submitted the reply by 10-9-81 and now he should be present for personal hearing" on 30-11-81 in the office of regional Manager, Moradabad. On that date the petitioner did not appear. Again vide letter dated 3-12-81 petitioner was informed about the date fixed in the departmental proceeding i. e. 21-12-81. On that date the petitioner did not appear. Again vide letter dated 3-12-81 petitioner was informed about the date fixed in the departmental proceeding i. e. 21-12-81. On that date also the petitioner did not appear, ( 5 ) THEREAFTER a letter dated 26-11-81 was received in the office of the Inquiry Officer on 3-12-81 by which the petitioner gave the list of following witnesses to whom he wanted to examine : 1- Sri Harendra, Steno 2- Sri Vaheed Ahmad (Abdul Waheed) 3- Sri KBI Garg 4- Sri A. A. Verma 5- Sri G. B. Pandey 6- Sri R. B. Jauhari 7- Sri V. K. Sharma 8- G. P. Shahi 9- Mangte Lal 10- Sri K. S. Manral 11- Sri Rajendra Singh 12- Sri O. P. Bhatt and 13- Sri Dhaniram (retired regional Manager, Nainital ). ( 6 ) AFTER receipt of the aforesaid letter the Inquiry Officer vide his letter dated 15-12-82 informed the petitioner that he should appear on 24-5-82 alongwith his defence witnesses as well as the witnesses whose names have been mentioned in the letter dated 26-11-81 by getting them relieved for the purpose by the authority competent for that date i. e. 24-5-82. The notices were also issued to Sri V. P. Joshi, Abdul Wahid, D. N. Pandey and G. P. Chaudhary to appear on 24-5-82 to prove their statement made against the petitioner. ( 7 ) ON 24-5-82 certain witnesses were examined but the same could not be concluded, therefore, 16-6-82 was fixed but on that date neither the petitioner nor his defence witnesses appear, therefore, 13-7-82 was fixed. This date was informed to all concerned by office letter dated 19-5-82. On 13-7-82 the petitioner appeared and participated in the inquiry. On that date the statement of Sri V. P. Joshi was recorded. Statement of Sri Joshi and the cross-examination of the petitioner has been detailed at internal page-4 of the inquiry report which is contained alongwith annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. Sri V. P. Joshi had made a clear and categorical statement in proof of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The first witness Sri G. P. Chaudhary was also examined on that date who proved the charges in presence of the petitioner. The 3rd witness mahendra Singh and 4th witness Sri D. N. Pandey also proved the charges. Sri V. P. Joshi had made a clear and categorical statement in proof of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The first witness Sri G. P. Chaudhary was also examined on that date who proved the charges in presence of the petitioner. The 3rd witness mahendra Singh and 4th witness Sri D. N. Pandey also proved the charges. The statement of these witnesses have been dealt with by the inquiry officer in his inquiry report which is contained alongwith Annexure No. 4 at pages 5 and 6. The petitioner in his defence submitted a list of 10 witnesses, all of them were employee of the UPSRTC. They were directed to be relieved by the competent authority and this was informed to the petitioner also. Out of 10 only 5 witnesses namely R. B. Chaudhury, Cashier, Mangtu Lal, Sweeper, Goving Pandey, O. P. Bhatt and Sri G. P. Shahi appeared. All of them made a joint statement that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner was being held as an outcome of malice, though they did not deny the occurrence of incident but they denied that any of the member of the Union did not misbehave or used any abusive language. They were not ready to give their statement separately. Thereafter several dates were fixed informing the petitioner to produce other defence witnesses. Despite the several dates were fixed when the petitioner did not turn up then the last date was notified by publication on 30-8-83 in the newspaper amar Ujala requiring the petitioner to produce other defence witnesses if he so desire. Thereafter last date fixed on 20-9-83 and the petitioner was informed to come and participate in the departmental proceedings but when the petitioner did not turn up the inquiry was concluded and the report was prepared on the basis of the statements recorded on the last date and after considering the statement of the witnesses in support of the charges and the statement of the witnesses examined by the Petitioner in his defence the Inquiry Officer found that the charges proved and he submitted the report to the appointing authority. ( 8 ) THE appointing authority issued a show-cause notice on 28-8-87 annexing therewith a copy of the inquiry report. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said show cause notice on 31-1-83. The punishing Authority after considering the reply of the petitioner passed the impugned order of punishment. ( 8 ) THE appointing authority issued a show-cause notice on 28-8-87 annexing therewith a copy of the inquiry report. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said show cause notice on 31-1-83. The punishing Authority after considering the reply of the petitioner passed the impugned order of punishment. From the perusal of the impugned order of punishment it is evident that the punishing authority had considered the inquiry report independently by dealing with each charge, statement of witnesses in support of the charge, the statement of witnesses and defence of the petitioner, finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer as well as reply submitted by the petitioner elaborately then came to the conclusion by a reasoned order that the charges have been found proved and awarded the punishment of dismissal. ( 9 ) THE petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid order on the ground that the punishment order has been passed as an outcome of malice in as much as the petitioner was a Union Leader and he went to meet the Regional Manager of certain demands of the Union. The request of the petitioner for change of the Inquiry Officer was not accepted despite his request; that the order of punishment has been passed without waiting the order of the Labour Minister as directed by the labour Minister on 15-9-87; that the petitioners services has been dismissed with a view to save the services of Sri V. P. Joshi. On the appeal the appellate authority obtained the comment and entire record. The appellate authority while dealing with the first ground has held that the petitioner was punished for the misconduct of misbehaving with his superior officers and for abusing him and scuffling with the superior officers. It was not an outcome of malice. He agreed with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer as well as the punishing authority. While dealing with the second ground the appellate authority had found on the basis of the record that application dated 31-8-83 which was on the pad of the Union signed by the petitioner was not addressed to the competent authority. The Competent Authority can only change the Inquiry officer; since it was not in accordance with the rules, therefore, no action was taken. He further found that there was nothing in the letter which could warrant the change of Inquiry Officer. The Competent Authority can only change the Inquiry officer; since it was not in accordance with the rules, therefore, no action was taken. He further found that there was nothing in the letter which could warrant the change of Inquiry Officer. The appellate authority had dealt with this ground in detail and has held that the Inquiry Officer was rightly not changed as the said letter was only, with a view to delay the inquiry as there was nothing in the letter which could warrant the change of the Inquiry Officer. So far as the 3rd ground is concerned the appellate authority has found that there is nothing on record to show that there was any such direction by the then Labour Minister, He has further found that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 31-12-87 while the discussion with the Minister is alleged to be held on 15-9-87 which had nothing to do with the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The appellate authority has found that the departmental proceeding against V. P. Joshi has nothing to do with the present departmental proceedings on the basis of which the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The expellable authority has further dealt with the other grounds stated in the reply of the notice and has found that it appears that petitioner being the Union Leader was taking himself to be above the law and has committed misconduct of serious nature. The appellate authority found that full opportunity of defence has been given to the petitioner. The inquiry against petitioner has been held for misconduct on the part of the petitioner and not as outcome of any malice. For these reasons the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. ( 10 ) FROM scanning of the inquiry report as well as punishment order as narrated above it is established that the petitioner has been given full opportunity of defence. The finding recorded against the petitioner is based on the facts proved before inquiry officer in support of the charges. Thus no interference is called for on the ground that full opportunity was not given to the petitioner. The finding recorded against the petitioner is based on the facts proved before inquiry officer in support of the charges. Thus no interference is called for on the ground that full opportunity was not given to the petitioner. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the finding once recorded on the proved facts i. e. concluded on findings of fact as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the latest case of apparel Export Promotion Council v. A. K. Chopra, reported in J. T. 1999 (1) SC 61. In the said very judgment it has been held as under : "even in so far as imposition of penalty or punishment a concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the Disciplinary or the departmental Appellate Authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. " ( 11 ) AFTER referring to the various judgment the Supreme Court has held that Judicial Review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was arrived at, the Court while exercising the power of Judicial review must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has been arrived at by the Administrative Authority after following the principles established by law and the rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meet the case against him, the Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the administrative Authority on a matter which fell squarely within the shpere of that authority. ( 12 ) THUS, the charges have been fully proved after giving a fair treatment and full opportunity of defence to the petitioner and the punishment is commensurate to the charges levelled against him. It does not shock the conscience of this Court. ( 13 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons the writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. .