JUDGMENT : S.B. Sinha, J. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 1134 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the O.A. filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the order dated 28-9-1998 passed by the 5th respondent accepting the resignation of the petitioner, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner herein was appointed as driver in the Office of the Director of Aeronautics which was renamed as Centre for Airworthiness. On various grounds of misconduct including reporting for duty in a drunken state, the petitioner was suspended from service on 24-5-1998. However, the same was revoked on 15-7-1998. 3. The petitioner herein has made allegations that he had paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the 5th respondent for the said purpose. The petitioner alleges that in May, 1998, the 5th respondent herein obtained a letter of resignation from him by coercion which was utilised for passing the impugned order. Surprisingly enough, although a specific case in that behalf been made, he has also pleaded that he had never tendered his resignation and the reasons assigned therein are false. 4. An appeal taken by him from the order accepting the resignation was dismissed by the 2nd respondent on 13-7-1999. 5. As before the learned Tribunal, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Abhinand K. Shavili, before us also submitted that the purported offer of resignation should not have been accepted before the expiry of the period of 90 days as within the said period the petitioner herein could reconsider his decision. Our attention has also been drawn to the statements made by the applicant at para 4(iii) of the original application. It was submitted that the 5th respondent did not traverse the said allegations. In support of the said contention reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in C.S. Rowjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 962 . 6. Before the learned Tribunal, records were produced. It appears that the petitioner had been placed under suspension on 24-5-1998 stating: "In spite of repeated earlier warnings on leaving over-drinking habit, and several punishments in the past it was observed by RD(M) that you were in totally in toxicated condition on 24-5-1998 night due to over drinking between the period of leaving RD(M) and bringing him back. It appears that the petitioner had been placed under suspension on 24-5-1998 stating: "In spite of repeated earlier warnings on leaving over-drinking habit, and several punishments in the past it was observed by RD(M) that you were in totally in toxicated condition on 24-5-1998 night due to over drinking between the period of leaving RD(M) and bringing him back. Drinking on duty is inexcusable offence and that too when you have taken head of establishment for some demi official function. Your condition was so severe on that day that RD(M) had to drive the staff car himself to avoid possible damage to the Govt; car and injuries to himself and others on the road. In view of the above and your past history, there is no other alternative except to keep you under suspension till final view on the present case is taken by CFA after receipt of your explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of this order. You have to explain why you should not be removed from the services by accepting your voluntary resignation letter, given as a pre-condition for continuing your services in the previous cases". 7. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as temporary M.T. Driver Grade II on 12-2-1986 and was put on probation for a period of two years. He had not been made permanent from 1988 to 1996. He was made permanent with effect from 1-12-1997. Several enquiries had been held against him and several penalties were also imposed on him which had been detailed in the reply statement filed on behalf of the respondent. The allegations that he had to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the purpose of availing casual leave in May, 1998 and Rs. 25,000/- for the purpose of revoking the order suspension on 10-6-1998 had categorically been denied. It was further brought on record that he had also earlier submitted a conditional resignation. However, he was reinstated into service on 15-7-1998 as his mother, brother and wife had pleaded for mercy. 8. In this connection, it may be noticed that in several of his letters viz., letters dated 7-5-1990, 6-1-1993, February, 1997, 11-3-1997, 27-5-1998 etc., the petitioner had accepted the fact that he had either not attended to his duties or had come to his place of work in a drunken condition. 9. 8. In this connection, it may be noticed that in several of his letters viz., letters dated 7-5-1990, 6-1-1993, February, 1997, 11-3-1997, 27-5-1998 etc., the petitioner had accepted the fact that he had either not attended to his duties or had come to his place of work in a drunken condition. 9. By reason of letter dated 15-7-1998, having regard to the plea made by the family members of the petitioner, the order of suspension was revoked and he was reinstated into service. The said letter reads thus: "Yourself along with your brother Sri Balbir Singh, your mother Smt. Anasuya Bai, your wife Mrs. R. Kamala along with your elder daughter came to RD's residence pleading for yet another but last chance to be given to you. They promised for keeping full vigil on your drinking habits to ensure that you came to office in non-drunken condition. They also promised that in case you once again drink on duty, or come to office in drunken condition, they assured that they would not come again for requesting RD's mercy on you or your family. This plead was made to RD(M) in the presence of undersigned since I was also called by him when you all called on him at his residence. Hence this would be the last chance, further given to you by RD(M) for -taking you back into service with the warning that you should neither come to office in drunken condition nor drink during office hours, and misbehave with office people. It is presumed that intelligentia at least now onwards will prevail on you and you will do nothing that will harm your or your family viz., over drinking in future. Your absence from office w.e.f. 25-5-1998 will be accepted to be regularised as leave till you resume duty, as a very special case. This is issued with the concurrence of RD(M) (DR) V. Gopala Krishna, Sc. 'E' For Regional Director (Materials)" 10. In this connection, it is also relevant to note that the respondents in their-reply statement, inter alia, stated: "8. In regard to the averments made in para 4 of the OA, it is submitted that the applicant's claim that by using his resignation letter, obtained by force in the month of May, 1998, RD, RCMA(M) passed the impugned orders on 28-9-98 relieving the applicant w.e.f. 28-9-98 is fabricated and false. In regard to the averments made in para 4 of the OA, it is submitted that the applicant's claim that by using his resignation letter, obtained by force in the month of May, 1998, RD, RCMA(M) passed the impugned orders on 28-9-98 relieving the applicant w.e.f. 28-9-98 is fabricated and false. The series of incidents for his resigning from the job in addition to his over drinking, and revelation of petrol theft noticed by authorities as indicated below: (a) Based on certain telephonic information of petrol sale from staff car by the applicant, petrol tank keys were taken from him w.e.f. 1st June, 1998. MTO staff was also advised to go for filling of petrol along with driver and keep the petrol tank keys with them only and that mileage jumped up by 1 to 1.5 Km. per litre from that month onwards. (b) Accordingly instructions were then issued on 23rd July, 1998 to the applicant to obviating petrol theft among many other corrections of his bad deeds. (c) On 17-7-1998, a new Security Register for staff car entry details was put up to RD(M). RD(M) asked for old register also for putting up to him. Old register was initially not traceable. Subsequently, on 21-9-98, the register was found in the table drawer of the applicant when opened using duplicate key kept with Admn. And was put up to RD, RCMA(M). Old register maintained indicated a jump of 6815 Kms. in milometre reading on the same day. In fact while taking staff car by the applicant in the morning of 16-7-98, the milometre read 14402 and when vehicle returned in the evening, it recorded 21217 Kms. duly authenticated in security register by Sri Jalam Singh Rathore the applicant herein. (d) The RD(M) wanted to initiate enquiry proceedings but the applicant pleaded to RD(M) not to initiate enquiry on the petrol theft and he orally confessed to RD(M) of purchasing liquor by selling petrol. On 28th September, 1998 morning, he came to the office and submitted his 'undated resignation' on the grounds of his inability to attend the official duties effectively due to his chronic alcoholic habits". It is also stated that the petitioner was in the habit of putting up undated letters. 11. On 28th September, 1998 morning, he came to the office and submitted his 'undated resignation' on the grounds of his inability to attend the official duties effectively due to his chronic alcoholic habits". It is also stated that the petitioner was in the habit of putting up undated letters. 11. The only question which arises for consideration is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, the purported mala fides alleged by the petitioner against respondent No. 5 had been proved. 12. The learned Tribunal, in its order, has appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a finding of fact that the letter of resignation dated 28-9-1998 was not obtained from the petitioner under coercion. Learned Tribunal further held that the allegation that the 5th respondent had accepted Rs. 25,000/- for revoking suspension had not borne from record. The material allegations made against respondent No. 5 had not been found to be correct by the learned Tribunal. This Court while exercising the power of judicial review can interfere with an order passed by a Tribunal only in a case where the Tribunal had committed any illegality or impropriety in arriving its findings. Herein, no case has been made out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in that regard. 13. So far as the decision of the Apex Court in C.S. Rowjee's case (1 supra) is concerned, in our view, the same has no application to the facts of the present case. Further, in the reply statement, the respondents denied the allegations made in para 4 of the O.A. that the petitioner was made to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for grant of one day casual leave in May, 1998 and a further fine of Rs. 25,000/- as a condition to allow him to join duty on 15-7-1998. As already stated hereinbefore, the petitioner was reinstated into service as a last chance having regard to the plea made by his family members to show mercy. 14. Not only the allegations made by the petitioner have been specifically denied, records have also been produced before the Tribunal to show that such allegations are incorrect. The contention raised by the petitioner in the application were found to be false having regard to the number of documents produced before the Tribunal by the respondents herein. 15. 14. Not only the allegations made by the petitioner have been specifically denied, records have also been produced before the Tribunal to show that such allegations are incorrect. The contention raised by the petitioner in the application were found to be false having regard to the number of documents produced before the Tribunal by the respondents herein. 15. In this situation, we are of the opinion that it is not possible for this Court to reappraise the evidence and interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. There shall be no order as to costs.