JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked by the petitioner to get the order of his compulsory retirement, by way of punishment imposed by his employer, the Bombay Port Trust (BPT), for contravention of the service regulations, quashed and set aside. He has contended that the alleged breach of the regulations was of mere technical nature not warranting the extreme penalty of throwing him out of employment. 2. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 23-7-1984 alleging breach of:--- (i) BPT-PF Regulation No. 19-B(7)(8): (ii) BPT (Conduct) Regulations 15(4) (iii) BPT (Grant of Advance for Purchase of Motor Car and Motor Cycles) Regulations, 1976, (Regulations 14, 15 and 16). The above Regulations for ready reference are produced below:--- Regulation 19-B(7) "A subscriber shall also be permitted subject to the other conditions hereinabove mentioned, to withdraw an appropriate amount for the purpose of purchasing on ownership basis a residential flat even though the land on which it is built does not become his property, provided that within three months of the withdrawal or such further period as the Chairman may permit he produces proof to the effect that:--- (a) he has made payment for the residential flat; (b) he has become a member of the Co-operative Housing Society, Limited Company or any other incorporated body (recognised in law) formed by the purchasers of the flats in the building: and (c) the builder has transferred the legal title to the building to the said Co-operative Society, Limited Company or incorporated body." Regulation 19-B(8) "Every subscriber who desires to take advantage of this Regulation shall sign an undertaking in the form printed as Appendix "K" to these Regulations. BPT (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 Regulation No. 15.Movable, immovable and valuable property (1) "No employee shall, except with the previous knowledge of the Chairman, acquire or dispose of any immovable property by lease, mortgage, purchase, sale, gift or otherwise, either in his own name or in the name of any member of his family: "Provided that any such transaction conducted otherwise than through a regular or reputed dealer shall require the previous sanction of the prescribed authority." "Explanation.---It is not contemplated that an employee may enter into transactions regarding movable and immovable property without the previous sanction of the prescribed authority and afterwards seek ex-post facto sanction. Such a procedure would render the provisions of these regulations completely ineffective and defeat the purpose for which these regulations have been framed. It is, therefore, essential that the provisions of these regulations shall be strictly adhered to and the employees shall obtain the sanction of the prescribed authority wherever necessary, before entering into a transaction." Regulation 15(4) "The Chairman may, at any time, by general or special order, require an employee to submit, within a period specified in the order, a full and complete statement of such movable or immovable property held or acquired by him or by any member of his family as may be specified in the order. Such statement shall, if so required by the Chairman, include details of the means by which or the source from which, such property was acquired. Explanations.---(1) The construction of a house results in acquisition of immovable property and attracts the provisions of this regulation. The purchase of movable property required for the construction of the house also attracts this Regulation. (2) Transaction as members of a Hindu undivided joint family shall not require the Chairman's prior permission. In such cases, transactions in immovable property shall be included in the annual property returns and those in movable property shall be reported to the prescribed authority immediately after completing the transaction or immediately after the employee comes to know of them. "If the employee is unable to give an idea of his share of such property he may give details of the full property and the name of the members who share it." B.P.T. Employees (Grant of Advance for purchase of Motor Cars and Motor Cycles) Regulation, 1976. Regulation No. 14.---Advance to be refunded if motor car or motor cycle is not purchased within one month. "Unless an employee who is sanctioned an advance for the purchase of a motor car or motor cycle completes the purchase of and pays for, the motor car or motor cycle within one month from the date on which he draws the advance, he shall refund to the Board forthwith the full amount of the advance together with interest on that amount for one month." Note 1: The Chairman may, in exceptional cases, extend the period of one month prescribed in this Regulation to two months. Note 2: Where an employee refunds the full amount of the advance before the end of the month in which the payment of the advance was made to him, the interest may be recovered for the actual period the advance was retained by the employee. Regulation 15.---Agreement and mortgage bonds. "An employee shall, before the payment is made to him of the advance sanctioned for the purpose of a motor car or motor cycle, execute an agreement in the form prescribed in Annexure III to these Regulations, if the advance is granted to him under sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 6 or in the form prescribed in Annexure IV to these Regulations, if the advance is granted to him under sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 6. Immediately on completing, but not later than seven days from the date of the purchase of a motor car, he shall also execute a mortgage bond in the form prescribed in Annexure V and/or Annexure VI, as the case may be, to these Regulations, hypothecating the motor car, or motorcycle, to the Board as security for the advance. Regulation 16: "Advance with interest to be refunded forthwith when mortgage bond is not executed in time. The failure to execute a mortgage bond in time will render the employee who has taken the advance liable to refund forthwith the whole of the amount of advance with interest accrued unless good and sufficient reason is shown to the contrary and the authority competent to sanction an advance extends the period prescribed in this regard." 3. A precis of the articles of charges and statement of imputations of misconduct is that in purchase of a car and a flat for which he was given certain amount by way of advance and house loan, he did not obey and observe the prescribed Rules and Regulations reproduced above. By his written explanation dated 15-10-1984 he denied the allegations of his commission of any misconducts though however, he admitted that his non-observance of the relevant Regulations was not deliberate and dishonest but out of ignorance of those rules. He has also cited his long and meritorious service of 16 years with high degree of integrity and devotion. He also pinned his faith in the Chairman's decision which he would accept. He has also cited his long and meritorious service of 16 years with high degree of integrity and devotion. He also pinned his faith in the Chairman's decision which he would accept. He has stressed that he had repaid the loan amounts with interest and he did not put the B.P.T. to loss of even a single naya paisa and that he had no dishonest intentions. He candidly admitted technical breach of the regulations not amounting to any misconducts. 4. A domestic enquiry was held by a retired sessions and District Judge who submitted his findings and report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against the petitioner. He considered the whole material in the form of admitted documents placed before him and came to his own conclusions that the petitioner had violated the regulations and that he could not be exonerated merely because they were technical in nature as the same were meant for good administration and to be strictly adhered to. The Enquiry Officer did not entertain an argument of the petitioner that there were other highly placed officers guilty of similar breaches but no action was taken against any of them and that he was being singled out. Mrs. Ankaleshwariya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that her client's defence was not considered at all either by the Enquiry Officer or by the Chairman, the Disciplinary Authority and as such there has been total non-application of mind. She further submitted that the petitioner was not guilty of any major misconduct and that at the most there was technical lapses on his part due to circumstances beyond his control in respect of both the transactions viz., purchase of car and flat where all was dependent on a third party. She put it pithily that the car was not handed over to him though he had made a substantial payment and therefore he could not comply with the regulation and had made full payment back to the B.P.T. His declaration about the car was correct as he had made full payment for the car. About the flat also she has reiterated the petitioner's case. She has strongly asserted that there was no dishonesty on the part of the petitioner as he had not retained any money of the B.P.T. and that the B.P.T. was not put to any loss. 5. About the flat also she has reiterated the petitioner's case. She has strongly asserted that there was no dishonesty on the part of the petitioner as he had not retained any money of the B.P.T. and that the B.P.T. was not put to any loss. 5. I have carefully considered the whole record of the enquiry and the report of the Enquiry Officer as also the Chairman's decision. According to me, there does not appear any basic dishonesty on the part of the petitioner in respect of both the dealings. He has no doubt, admittedly, committed breaches of technical nature in respect of declaration of his property. It may be due to lack of full knowledge and implications of the rules. And, therefore, the Chairman has rightly taken a lenient view considering his past good record. Even the Central Government has confirmed the said decision of the Chairman in appeal filed by the petitioner by its order dated 16-10-1987. 6. I am not able to accept the contentions of Mrs. Ankaleshwariya that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the Chairman and the Central Government. The Chairman has discussed in detail the case of the petitioner from the material on record and has even exonerated him from certain charges and has even reduced the proposed punishment of dismissal to that of the compulsory retirement. This decision of the Chairman certainly reflects his complete application of mind to the case of the petitioner. Even the Appellate Authority has considered the entire material on record and has come to its own conclusions. Both these authorities have based their findings on material on record and have given cogent reasons. Both have concurred with the report of the Enquiry Officer who has considered thread-bare the documentary evidence before him and has recorded his findings of guilt of the petitioner. In view of the three authorities concurrent findings of facts, I cannot exercise my extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no infirmity in the decisions and conclusions of the Chairman and the Central Government in upholding the punishment of the compulsory retirement inflicted upon the petitioner. 7. In view of the three authorities concurrent findings of facts, I cannot exercise my extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no infirmity in the decisions and conclusions of the Chairman and the Central Government in upholding the punishment of the compulsory retirement inflicted upon the petitioner. 7. At a first blush, I was indeed impressed by the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner about the deal with Shri Kazi, a partner of the firm having official dealings with the B.P.T. But on second thought and after scratching a little deeper I find that the petitioner is not that innocent which he makes out to be. Firstly, he should not have purchased any car from Shri Kazi if at all he had entered into that transaction with him. There is some lurking doubt in my mind about the truthfulness of the alleged deal of purchase of the car from Shri Kazi. Secondly, there is some smell of manipulation in the give and take of money for the purchase of car. Cars are not purchased and sold in this manner. The prudence of the Regulation is established in the affidavit of Kumari Saroj G. Tahiliani, of the B.P.T. where in paras 12, 13 and 14 she has aptly connected the petitioner with the said firm of Shri Kazi and that there was a C.B.I. enquiry against the petitioner for his recommending the highest tender of Kazi's firm over the other lower tenders. It is very significant that the petitioner has given bare denials in his rejoinder dated 14-7-1988 to these allegations, specifically made in the affidavit of Kumari Tahiliani. There is no satisfactory reply given by the petitioner to the specific averments made by her. He has tried to take shelter under technicality that was not the charge levelled against him for compulsory retirement. 8. Considering overall circumstances including the affidavits in reply in this petition, I am of the view that the petitioner has been rightly retired compulsorily by way of punishment. In any case, the C.B.I. enquiry was awaiting him where he would have faced investigation in the tender recommended by him for Shri Kazi's firm. He appears to be under dark clouds of doubt. In any case, the C.B.I. enquiry was awaiting him where he would have faced investigation in the tender recommended by him for Shri Kazi's firm. He appears to be under dark clouds of doubt. It is certainly not a case for reinstatement but is a case of "loss of confidence" in an officer not deserving to be sent back in the employment. Though, however, other more powerful officers worse than the petitioner have been fortunate enough, not caught by the Chairman's eye. 9. Hence the petition fails. Rule is discharged. No orders as to costs. Issuance of certified copy expedited. Petition fails. -----