JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this writ applica¬tion calls in question the legality of the order in Annexure-14 passed by the disciplinary authority inflicting penalty of reduc¬tion of basic pay by three stages and treating the period of suspension as such pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding as well as the order contained in Annexure-16 denying promotion to the petitioner to MM-II and for other consequential benefits. 2. From the averments made in the writ application it appears that while the petitioner was serving in the State Bank of India he was placed under suspension by the General Manager (Operation) vide letter dated 11.5.1988 on the allegation that he had committed certain irregularities while working at Salipur A.D.B. and Palasudha Branch of the Bank. The order of suspension was given effect from 16.6.1988 pending drawal of charges. While continuing under suspension as set of charges were framed and communicated to him on 19.9.1990 where in 20 irregularities were pointed out to have been committed by the petitioner and he has called upon to submit his defence in writing. After receipt of the charges the petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges and also prayed for providing him relevant records re¬serving his right to submit further statement of defence. The management of the bank not being satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner decided to hold departmental enquiry and the enquiry commenced from 18.3.1991 and was completed on 27.9.1991. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of charge Nos. 1,2,3,8,12,14, and submitted his report. On receipt of the report the disciplinary authority issued a letter to the petitioner on 28.10.1992 about the findings of the Enquiry Offi¬cer calling for an explanation with regard to the charges found to have been partially proved against him. The petitioner submit¬ted his explanation to the aforesaid letter. However, it appears that the disciplinary authority also did not agree with the findings of the Enquiring Officer with regard to the charges 9, 10 and 13 and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation with regard to the aforesaid charges. After receipt of the expla¬nation from the petitioner he was reinstated in service on 9.11.1994 and ultimately having been found guilty of charges as indicated above, the disciplinary authority decided to inflict punishment of reduction in basic pay by three stages and also treated the period of suspension as such. After receipt of the expla¬nation from the petitioner he was reinstated in service on 9.11.1994 and ultimately having been found guilty of charges as indicated above, the disciplinary authority decided to inflict punishment of reduction in basic pay by three stages and also treated the period of suspension as such. Challenging the said order of punishment the petitioner preferred an appeal. Though order passed by the appellate authority has not been annexed to the writ application, from the counter-affidavit filed by the bank it appears that the appeal was dismissed by order dated 29.8.1997 and the petitioner acknowledged the same on 27.9.1997. 3. Shri Ashok Mukherji, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the findings of the Enquiry Offi¬cer as well as the punishment based thereon submitted that out of 20 charges framed against the petitioner only six were found to have been partially proved by the Enquiry Officer and three more charges were found to be also partially proved by the discipli¬nary authority. According to Sri Mukherji unless the charges can be divided into separate parts, the question of partial proof of any charge does not arise. Since the petitioner was kept in dark about the portion of the charges said to have been proved, appro¬priate explanation could not be submitted challenging the said findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary authority. Shri Mukherji also contended that if the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer are looked into it will be found that there is no proof of charges and at best it can be said that the petitioner was negligent to some extent in his duties, and therefore for such negligence no punishment can be inflicted. 4. Sri P.V. Ramdas, learned counsel appearing for the Bank referring to the counter affidavit submitted that out of 20 charges nine charges have been proved by the Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority, and therefore the order of pun¬ishment can neither be termed as illegal nor it is disproportion¬ate. Mr ramdas further submitted that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal against the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority unless the petitioner is in a position to prove that the charges in respect of which he has been found guilty whether partially or fully are based on no evidence. Since the petitioner has not come up with such a case there is hardly any scope for this Court to appreciate evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and come to a different conclusion. 5. From the records placed before the Court, it appears that while the petitioner was working as Officer JMGS-I he had been put under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceed¬ing. The charges indicating the irregularities committed by the petitioner relate to his incumbency a Branch Manager of Salipur ADB from January 1981 to January, 1985 and as Branch Manager of Palasudha SAB from February, 1985 to February, 1988. The charges in respect of which the petitioner was found guilty by the En¬quiry Officer as well as by the Disciplinary Authority are as follows : Charge No. 1 - The petitioner working as Field Officer without making a pre-sanction survey, fraudulently recommended a fictitious loan of Rs. 3,000/- in the name of one Panchanan Bal and the loan amount was withdrawn in stages and misappropriated by the Officer. Charge No.2 - The petitioner fraudulently recom¬mended another fictitious loan of Rs. 3,500/- in the name of Indramani Nayak and got the same sanctioned through P.K. Mohanty, R.D.M. by fraudulent means. Charge No. 3 - The petitioner had recommended fraudulent loan of Rs. 3, 500/- for sanction in the name of one Abhimanyu Sahu and got it sanctioned through P.K. Mohanty, RDM. Charge No. 8 - The petitioner sanctioned gold loan to Sri P.K. Rout, Canteen Boy on 18.1.1988 for Rs. 9000/- against pledge of spurious gold ornaments. Charge No. 9 - The petitioner sanctioned DRI cash credit loan for Rs. 4, 800/- on 21.1.1988 to the same canteen boy who was not eligible for such loan. Charge No. 10 - The petitioner granted cash credit loan under DRI scheme on 30.11.85 for Rs. 5000/- to one Jogesh Chandra Singh and the purpose of the loan was not recorded in the loan application and the loan documents were left blank. In the same charge it appears that the petitioner sanctioned second loan of Rs. 4, 800/- to J.C. Singh on 27.6.86 though previous loan was irregular and outstanding. Again third loan of Rs. 5000/- was sanctioned in favour said Singh on 7.1.1988 and no assets were acquired and thereby the bank was cheated. The petitioner sanc¬tioned fourth loan on 27.1.88 for an amount of Rs. 4, 800/- to J.C. Singh on 27.6.86 though previous loan was irregular and outstanding. Again third loan of Rs. 5000/- was sanctioned in favour said Singh on 7.1.1988 and no assets were acquired and thereby the bank was cheated. The petitioner sanc¬tioned fourth loan on 27.1.88 for an amount of Rs. 9000/- to the said Singh when three other loans in the borrowing name were irregular and outstanding. Charge No. 12 - The petitioner failed to exercise his discretionary powers judiciously while sanction¬ing an agricultural cash credit loan of Rs. 4,700/- on 10.2.86 to one Rajendra Kumar Samal. Charge No. 13 - The petitioner irregularly sanctioned two agricultural cash credit loans for the same purpose to Madhusudan Rout for an amount of Rs. 5000/- and the second loan was sanc¬tioned when the first loan was outstanding against the borrower. Charge - 14 - The petitioner irregularly sanctioned an agri¬cultural cash credit loan of Rs. 5000/- to Dhananjaya Samal though he did not have any landed property or undertook any agricultural operation. He also sanctioned one agricultural term loan for Rs. 3000/- to Sri Samal for purchase of bullocks when earlier loan was outstanding. 6. On consideration of charges framed against the peti¬tioner as well as evidence led before the Enquiry Officer, report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, finding the petitioner guilty of charges 1, 2, 3, 8, 12 and 14 as indicated above. In respect of charge No. 1 the Enquiry Officer found that loan was availed by another person in the name of Radhamohan Bal, but there was no evidence to show that the said loan amount was misappropriated by the petitioner. However, the Enquiry Officer found that the circumstantial evi¬dence proved that the petitioner had not made pre-sanction survey of the loan account for which it was possible for some other person to avail the loan in the name of Radhamohan Bal. It is the duty of the Field Officer to identify the loanee after pre-sanction survey. So far as charge No.2 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer on consideration of evidence led before him found that the petitioner had fraudulently recommended the loan, but it could not be proved that he had enjoyed the loan amount and it was held that the charge had been partially proved. So far as charge No.2 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer on consideration of evidence led before him found that the petitioner had fraudulently recommended the loan, but it could not be proved that he had enjoyed the loan amount and it was held that the charge had been partially proved. Similar findings have been arrived at by the enquiry Officer in respect of other charges where the petitioner was found guilty. The Disciplinary Authority after receiving the enquiry report and going through the records did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to Charge Nos. 9. 10 and 13 and called for explanation from the petitioner as to why he should also not be held guilty in respect of the aforesaid three charges. After receipt of the explanation the disciplinary au¬thority on reconsideration of the evidence available on record also found him guilty of the aforesaid three charges apart from agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 12 and 13. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no reliable material to support the charges and that the findings did not indicate in respect of which part of the charge the petitioner has been found guilty appears to be without any substance. In each of the find¬ing in respect of the charges for which the petitioner is found guilty, it appears that the evidence, oral and documentary, placed before the Enquiry Officer have been referred to and findings also clearly indicate in respect of which part of the charge the petitioner has been found guilty. As an example, so far as charge No.1 concerned, it appears that the loan was sanc¬tioned in favour of one Radhamohan Bal. The defence version in respect of this is that said Radhamohan Bal, in collusion with his nephew Sri Harihar Bal and Sri P.K. Kanungo, Advocate has cheated the Bank. The Enquiry Officer accepted the identify as well as version of Radhamohan Bal who was brought to the enquiry through the Inspector, CBI. Having accepted identity and evidence of Radhamohan Bal, the Enquiry Officer found that the loan has been availed by the some other person in the name of Radhamohan Bal. The Enquiry Officer accepted the identify as well as version of Radhamohan Bal who was brought to the enquiry through the Inspector, CBI. Having accepted identity and evidence of Radhamohan Bal, the Enquiry Officer found that the loan has been availed by the some other person in the name of Radhamohan Bal. So far as this part of the charge is concerned, The enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty since as Field Officer the petitioner was required the identify the loanee during pre-sanc¬tion survey and he had failed in his duty to do so. So far as other part of the charge with regard to misappropriation of loan amount is concerned, the Enquiry Officer did not accept the same. In view of such clear finding in respect of charge No. 1, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not know in respect of which part of the charge he has been found guilty. We have also looked into the other charges and find that the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority had given reason referring to the evidence on record in support of their findings and it is clear from all the findings with regard to the part of charge in respect of which the petitioner has not been found guilty and other part of the same charge in respect of which he has not been found guilty. Most of the charges in respect of which the peti¬tioner has been found guilty relate to gross irregularities or negligence in duty in sanctioning loans to different persons. We, therefore, do not agree with the learned counsel for the peti¬tioner that the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as Disci¬plinary Authority are based on no evidence. 7. Coming to the scope of interference by this Court in such cases, reference may be made the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and another -v- Rattan Singh, reported in AIR 1997 S.C. 1542. The Apex Court in the said deci¬sion observed as follows : “Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic Tribunal is beyond scrutiny. The Apex Court in the said deci¬sion observed as follows : “Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic Tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the Court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record.” In the case of State of Tamil Nadu and another -v- S. Subra¬maniam, reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 1232 , while referring to the powers of Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Admin¬istrative Tribunals Act as well as Article 226 of the Constitu¬tion of India, the Apex Court observed as follows : “The only question is whether the Tribunal was right in its conclusion to appreciate the evidence and to reach its own find¬ing that the charge has not been proved. The Tribunal is not a Court of appeal. The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was taken away by the power under Article 323-A and invested the same on the Tribunal by Central Administrative Tribunal Act. It is settled law that the Tribunal has only power of judicial review of the administrative action of the appellant on complaints relating to service condi¬tions of employees. It is the exclusive domain of the discipli¬nary authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the charge has been proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules of evidence has no application for the disciplinary proceedings and the authority is to consider the material on record. In judicial review, it is settled law that the Court or the Tribunal has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is neces¬sarily correct in the view of the Court of Tribunal. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of power to reappraising the evidence and would come to its own conclusion on the proof of the charge. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of power to reappraising the evidence and would come to its own conclusion on the proof of the charge. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence.” In the case of High Court of Judicature of Bombay -v- Shasi¬kant S. Patil and another, reported in AIR 2000 S.C. 22 , the Apex Court laid downs the scope of interference in a writ jurisdiction and observed as follows : “Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if such authority had held proceed¬ings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by con¬siderations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. However, it cannot be overlook that the departmental authority is the sole judge of the facts, if the inquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. On perusal of the departmental proceeding records as well as punishment imposed by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary authority, since we find that such findings have been arrived on the basis of acceptable evidence we refrain from interfering with the same. 8. In view of the discussions made above we do not find any merit in the writ application and the same stands dismissed. P. K. MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.