JUDGMENT - PALSHIKAR V.G., J.:---By this petition the petitioner who is an employee of City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as "CIDCO" for brevity sake) has challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in the matter of disciplinary proceedings held in relation to the petitioner for misconduct as alleged by charge-sheet. 2.Few facts necessary for adjudication of the contentions are liable to be noted. The petitioner was employed at the relevant time as Marketing Officer by CIDCO and while so functioning as Marketing Officer the petitioner committed certain misconduct viz. unauthorisedly signing allotment letters of apartments built by CIDCO for the benefit of Lower Income Group, Middle Income Group and Higher Income Group. The petitioner admittedly was not authorized to make allotment of flats available for sale with CIDCO. It came to the knowledge of the Managing Authorities of CIDCO that there have been gross irregularities in the matter of sale of about 480 flats in and around Panvel and the petitioner is responsible for the same. A random investigation was carried out and 20 concrete cases where interference by the petitioner was evident were taken out and petitioner was charge-sheeted for having committed misconduct of making allotment without authority and signing allotment letters without authority. Evidence was led and the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the evidence on record is adequate to warrant punishment to the petitioner and therefore recommended punishment of dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority accordingly accepted the report and dismissed the petitioner from service. 3.Aggrieved by the order passed by Disciplinary Authority the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority as prescribed by the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules. It was contended before the Appellate Authority that there has been failure of justice, violation of principles of natural justice resulting in grave miscarriage of justice the petitioner having been dismissed from service on the basis of charges not proved. It was alleged that certain witnesses which the petitioner wanted to examine in his defence were not called, copies of certain documents were not supplied and this resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner. It amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service is liable to be set aside. It was alleged that certain witnesses which the petitioner wanted to examine in his defence were not called, copies of certain documents were not supplied and this resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner. It amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service is liable to be set aside. The Appellate Authority reappreciated the evidence on record, considered the contention of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that though the guilt of the petitioner is proved only 20 such cases were selected and scrutinized for the purpose of departmental enquiry. It cannot be presumed that he has committed such misconduct in relation to all 480 flats where irregularities were alleged by others. It also took note of the fact that flats in that area i.e. Panvel and near about were not being sold and constant efforts were made on behalf of CIDCO by its Marketing Officers including the petitioner. The Appellate Authority therefore modified the order of punishment, set aside the punishment of dismissal from service and instead directed his reinstatement and penalized him by reducing his pay to the minimum of scale of the substantive post held by him. The Appellate Authority recorded a finding that having regard to the facts and circumstances and charges proved it is of the view that punishment of dismissal Awarded to the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and therefore consistent to these findings the punishment was reduced as aforesaid to reduction of pay to the minimum of pay scale of the post substantively held by the petitioner. It is this order of the Appellate Authority which is impugned by the petitioner in this petition. 4.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order is liable to be set aside on the following grounds; (i) the findings are perverse and unsustainable in law as there is no basis in evidence to come to such conclusion and findings; (ii) the fact that the petitioner has unauthorisedly signed allotment letter is unsustainable in view of the evidence as led by the witnesses and CIDCO itself. The learned Counsel took us extensively through the evidence and pointed out that there is admitted evidence on record to show that such signing was done in several other cases also. The learned Counsel took us extensively through the evidence and pointed out that there is admitted evidence on record to show that such signing was done in several other cases also. For these reasons the learned Counsel prayed that the orders are vitiated. 5.The third ground urged by the learned Counsel was that the petitioner desired to examine certain witnesses who were not called and therefore he was denied adequate opportunity of representing himself or defending himself which in turn resulted in violation of principles of natural justice rendering the entire orders illegal and therefore prayed that they be quashed. Learned Counsel also relied upon several judgments of this Court and Supreme Court of India to contend that this Court can in its limited power of judicial review in disciplinary matters interfere in cases where there is a total absence of evidence or lack of evidence and findings consequently are rendered perverse. 6.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of CIDCO pointed out to us from the evidence on which reliance was placed by petitioners Counsel also that the evidence as it existed and accepted cannot be called insufficient or inadequate to come to a conclusion that the finding is perverse. The learned Counsel for CIDCO also relied upon several precedents to contend that quantity of evidence is no criteria for determination of an issue or for coming to a particular conclusion and findings. Adequacy or inadequacy of evidence cannot be the subject-matter of judicial review. The only case in which this Court can interfere is where there is no evidence to sustain the findings recorded by Disciplinary Authority. Even if all the arguments as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are accepted, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for CIDCO, that the orders impugned cannot be interfered with. There is evidence on record to show that the signing of allotment letters by the petitioner was unauthorized. He is charged with unauthorized allotment of flats and not only of signing of allotment letters, so viewed, according to learned Counsel, there is no reason to interfere. 7.As aforesaid we have been taken through evidence in extenso by both the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting parties and our scrutiny thereof has revealed that there was adequate evidence on record showing unauthorized allotment by the petitioner as also unauthorized signing of allotment letters. 7.As aforesaid we have been taken through evidence in extenso by both the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting parties and our scrutiny thereof has revealed that there was adequate evidence on record showing unauthorized allotment by the petitioner as also unauthorized signing of allotment letters. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner did not commit any misconduct by signing allotment letters the misconduct of having made unauthorized allotments cannot be wiped off and for that the finding as recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and as confirmed by Appellate Authority is correct and cannot be called perverse and cannot therefore be interfered. In our opinion, all extraneous circumstances which did exist according to the petitioner were taken into consideration by the Appellate Authority and it found that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate and ordered reduction of that punishment only to reduction to the minimum pay scale of the substantive post held by the petitioner. Substantial relief in our opinion, has already been granted by the Appellate Authority. From the scrutiny made by us it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are perverse. They are not liable to be interfered with. In the result, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----