Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the writ petition for quashing the order dated 30-11-1999 passed by the General Manager, N.T.P.C. Kanalgaon, respondent No. 6, whereby punishment of withholding one increment of pay without cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is an employee of respondent-Corporation. During the period 1989-90, he was posted as Engineer (Materials). In the year 1997, a departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner. The charge-sheet, Annexere-4, was furnished to the petitioner. The charge was that the petitioner without obtaining | approval of the competent authority placed purchase order (PO) No. FS: 42: MD: 02; 204 (Levy)/P.O.: 8-A02:1313 dated February 02,1989 on ACC. He also advised Sh. S.K. Bhattacharya, the then Sr. AO, FSTPP, vide I.O.M. No. FS: 42: MD: 02:204 (Levy) dated February 02,1989 to release an amount of Rs. 17,16,012 - to ACC through a Demand Draft only, as the advance payment for supply of 1800 MT levy cement by them. 3. In terms of item No. 9(a) of sec. 1 of the DOP, 1989, approval of the competent authority was to be obtained by the Materials Management Services in consultation with Finance. Shri J. Roy Sharma was, therefore, required to release the P.O. and to advise the Project Finance for release of advance payment for the cost of the levy cement to ACC only after such approval had been obtained by him. 4. The petitioner filed reply to the said charge vide Annexure-10 stating therein that it was the practice, followed by every dealing executive in Purchase Department to place purchase orders promptly in standard- format without prior financial concurrence and approval of competent authority. Similarly, it was the practice followed by Finance Executive to release 100% advance payment to Cement manufacturers based on Inter Office Memo from Purchase Executive, without prior approval of Competent Authority of Finance Department and BG from the seller. Such payment was being released by Finance Department subject to approved budgetary limit. It is a matter of great regret that PO in question issued by me during control period amongst many such orders and 100% advance payments made has been singled out by the Vigilance Department, in view of non-supply of cement and nor -refund of advance payment by the Supplier. It is a matter of great regret that PO in question issued by me during control period amongst many such orders and 100% advance payments made has been singled out by the Vigilance Department, in view of non-supply of cement and nor -refund of advance payment by the Supplier. It is also a fact that he wrote an IOM No. FS: 42 : MD : 02 : 204 : Levy to Sh. S.K. Bhattacharya, the then Senior Advocate Officer and presently Manager (Finance)/FSTPP with a request to release a payment of Rs. 17,16,012.00 to Andhra Cement Co. by DD like similar. lOMs issued by his predecessors. However, on completion of inquiry, it was found that the charge against the petitioner has been established. The proposed punishment was served to the petitioner and subsequently the order of punishment dated 10-6-1998 was passed, Annexure-12, whereby the penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect was impose 1 The petitioner challenged the order, Annexure-12, before the appellate authority. The appellate authority reduced penalty of withholding two increments of pay without cumulative effect to penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect Annexure-1. The petitioner has challenged the order, Annexure-1, in this writ petition. 5. A counter-affidavit has Been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in which stand has been taken that there is nothing wrong in the order, Annexure-1. The petitioner does not make any grievance and has no grudge against the fairness in procedure on the part of the respondent-Corporation before arriving at a finding of guilt against him. The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not availed the procedural remedy of review available to him under the N.T.P.C. Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 against the appellate order. In the counter-affidavit, stand has been taken that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in initiating proceeding and awarding punishment. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that the petitioner has been promoted subsequently and the action of the petitioner, i.e., not getting approval from the competent authority is not a misconduct and as such the order of punishment, Annexure-1, is bad in law. Whereas, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has admitted in reply to the charge about placing of the order and advancing the amount without obtaining approval from the competent authority. Whereas, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has admitted in reply to the charge about placing of the order and advancing the amount without obtaining approval from the competent authority. He also admitted that he wrote to the Accounts Officer to release amount for payment in advance for purchase of cement but cement was not supplied causing loss to the Corporation. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents this much is obvious that the petitioner was posted as Engineer (Materials) at the relevant time. In reply to the charge, Annexure-10, the petitioner has admitted that he wrote to the Accounts Officer requesting to release payment of Rs. 17,16,012.00 for supply of cement. Draft was also handed over by the petitioner to the cement manufacturer. Cement was not supplied. There is nothing on the record to show that advance payment for supply of cement was made after approval by the competent authority. In the proceedingd the charge against the petitioner that he without obtaining approval from the competent authority handed over demand draft as advance payment for supply of levy cement has been established. A notice was issued to the petitioner with proposed punishment and on consideration the order of punishment, Annexure-12, was passed withholding two increments without cumulative effect. In appeal, the said penalty was reduced to withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, Annexure-1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that it is not a misconduct but from the charge itself it is evident that proceeding was initiated with respect to misconduct and the said misconduct has been established during the enquiry. Not following the procedure is misconduct as the employee is required to follows procedure for doing work. This Court is not required to go into the merit of the case and decide, it as an appellate authority. The misconduct, as has been alleged in the charge, has been admitted by the petitioner in his reply to the charge and as such now it cannot be said that there was no misconduct. The procedure in fact, has to be followed and if procedure is not followed then certainly, it will come within the ambit of misconduct. No other point was raised. 8. Thus, on consideration, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.