L. MOHAPATRA. , J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order of dismissal from service in Annexure-8 which has been passed pursuant to disciplinary proceeding. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Cadre supervisor in opposite Party No. 1 - Bank, a set of charges were framed against him and were communicated on 11,12. 1987. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges and not being satisfied with the explanation a decision was taken to initiate the disciplinary proceeding and an Inquiry Officer was appointed on 12. 2. 1988. The petitioner submitted another explanation before the Inquiry Officer on 27. 4. 1988 as per the direction of the Administrator whereas after the inquiry proceeding continued. After conclusion of the inquiry a report was submitted before the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and the Inquiry Officer suggested withholding of two increments and warning. But the Disciplinary Authority accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer decided to dismiss the petitioner from service and accordingly the order of dismissal was passed. ( 2 ) DR. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has challenged the order of dismissal only on one ground. According to him, the inquiry report shows that the petitioner has been found guilty of all the charges merely on suspicion and therefore, the findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be sustained. Accordingly the order of dismissal is bad in law. On the other hand Shri J. Mohanty learned counsel appearing for the Bank has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ application on the ground that an appeal under Section 67 of the Co-operative Societies Act is maintainable against the aforesaid order of dismissal and the petitioner having not availed the alternative remedy available to him, the writ application cannot be entertained. ( 3 ) COMING to the question with regard to maintainability, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court by Shri Mohanty reported in Prahlad chandra Mohanty v. Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others, 87 (1999) CLT 185. ( 3 ) COMING to the question with regard to maintainability, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court by Shri Mohanty reported in Prahlad chandra Mohanty v. Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others, 87 (1999) CLT 185. In the said case, this Court held that an alternative remedy was available under Section 67 (b) of the Co-operative Societies Act for quashing the termination order passed against the petitioner therein and the writ application was disposed of directing the petitioner to move the co-operative Tribunal for effective adjudication. On the other hand reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal and others, AIR 1999 SC 1786 . Relying on the said decision. Dr. Panda submitted that availability of an alternative remedy does not debar to grant appropriate relief to a citizen under peculiar and special facts. In 87 (1999) CLT 185 (supra) that writ application was filed in the year 1997, and was disposed of on 28. 11. 1998, directing the petitioner therein to avail the alternative remedy available under the Co-operative Societies Act. The present case of the year 1992 and after expiry of almost nine years it is not desirable to direct the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy and I. therefore, entertain this writ application for adjudication. ( 4 ) COMING to the facts of this case, the petitioner while working as Cad supervisor in opposite party No. 1 Bank, was served with a memorandum of charges dated 10. 12. 1987. The petitioner had been charged with misappropriation of Bank's fund and tampering of office record; which amounted to misconduct and such acts were treated to be detrimental to the interest of the Bank. It appears from the charge-sheet that Soma Oram, Mangara Munda, Duryodhan mundari and Budhua Oram complained in writing that they had paid Rs. 1,000 each towards Dugwell and N. F. tank loan to the petitioner as Supervisor of bisra Block but the petitioner did not give them receipt in token of their deposits and only entry was made in the Loan Ledger whereas the same has not been entered in the Cash Book. The second charge is that one Etua Oram had paid Rs. 1,794. The second charge is that one Etua Oram had paid Rs. 1,794. 56 to the petitioner and the petitioner had given a receipt for the same amount, but there was no entry in the Cash book and in the carbon copy of the receipt in place of Rs. 1,794. 46, only Rs. 276. 09 had been entered and the said amount had been reflected in the Cash Book, as a result of which it appears that the petitioner has misappropriated Rs. 1,518. 37 paise. In reply to the charges the petitioner submitted that the four loanees in respect of charge No. 1 had not paid Rs. 1,000 each at a time and whenever any amount was received from them, receipt in respect of the same had been granted to them and as a matter of fact during the service period of the petitioner the accounts of Soma Oram and Budhua Oram had been closed. So far as the second charge is concerned it was submitted that Etua Oram had agreed to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 1. 794. 46 and in good faith he had granted receipt expecting that the amount would be deposited, but afterwards only Rs. 276. 09 had been deposited by said Etua Oram as a result of which in the carbon copy Rs. 276. O9 had been reflected. Not being satisfied with the explanation, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations. After conclusion of the inquiry the Inquiry Officer submitted his report. So far as charge No. 1 is concerned, the Inquiry Officer found that the amounts stated to have been deposited by the four loanees are suspected to have been misappropriated by the petitioner. From the materials on record he found that each of the four loanee had deposited certain amount at different times as per their oral evidence. But from the records it appears that less amount has been deposited in the bank and therefore, the Inquiry Officer suspected that certain amounts out of the deposits made by the aforesaid four loanees had been misappropriated by the petitioner. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned there is a clear finding that Etua Oram had deposited Rs. 1,794. 46 and a receipt had been granted to him in support of the said amount. However, in the carbon copy an amount of Rs. 276. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned there is a clear finding that Etua Oram had deposited Rs. 1,794. 46 and a receipt had been granted to him in support of the said amount. However, in the carbon copy an amount of Rs. 276. 09 was reflected and the said amount was actually deposited with the Bank. Therefore, the petitioner was found guilty of misappropriation of Rs. 1,794. 46. The Inquiry Officer also found tampering in the records of the Bank. In the concluding paragraph the Inquiry officer observed that the petitioner is suspected to have misappropriated an amount of Rs. 4,360. 00 in total from out of the amounts deposited by the four loanees mentioned in charge No. 1 and had misappropriated certain amount in respect of charge No. 2. On the basis of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the order of dismissal was passed in Annexure 8. ( 5 ) LAW is well settled that this Court shall not interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer unless it is satisfied that the evidence collected during the inquiry is such that no reasonable person can come to a conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. Unless it is established that there is no material on record to support the charge, the Courts ordinarily decline to interfere. Dr. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the findings of the Inquiry Officer having been based on suspicion alone, the same cannot be sustained and no order of dismissal can be passed on such findings which are based on suspicion. From a reading of the findings it appears that in respect of charge No. 1 the Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the oral evidence adduced by the four loanees and came to a conclusion that they had not been granted the receipts for the amounts they deposited and that the amounts deposited had not been correctly reflected in the Cash Book. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer found that since the petitioner had received the amount, it is suspected that he has misappropriated the same. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned, there is a clear finding that the petitioner has misappropriated a part of the amount deposited by Etua Oram by tampering the records. Therefore, the Inquiry Officer found that since the petitioner had received the amount, it is suspected that he has misappropriated the same. So far as charge No. 2 is concerned, there is a clear finding that the petitioner has misappropriated a part of the amount deposited by Etua Oram by tampering the records. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as it cannot be said that the findings of the inquiry Officer are based on no evidence. This Court has also no jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary authority once it upholds the findings of the inquiry Officer. ( 6 ) I, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the Disciplinary authority dismissing the petitioner from service. The writ application accordingly fails and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.