JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Lodh, learned Advocate for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh learned State counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. This writ appeal has been carried from the judgment and order dated 25.7.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 10/1991 by which the writ petition filed by the five writ petitioners, viz, (1) Shri Paramesh Bhattacharjee, (2) Shri Utpal Debbarma, (3) Shri Gouranga Deb, (4) Shri Himanshu Sarkar and (5) Shri Gopal Ch. Dey was dismissed holding that there was no scope to interfere with the finding of the departmental authority under the writ jurisdiction. The instant appeal has been preferred only by 3(three) appellants, namely, Shri Paramesh Bhattacharjee, Shri Gouranga Deb and Shri Gopal Chandra Dey. 3. It is settled law that the finding of the departmental proceedings need not be interfered with by a writ court in exercise of its power of judicial review unless the same suffers from perversity primarily based on no evidence, violation of principles of natural justice and/or contrary to the provisions of statutory law and the Constitution. It is accepted that in the departmental proceeding, if there is some evidence which can reasonably support the conclusion of the disciplinary authority, writ court exercises restraints to interfere with such finding. The case in hand, on perusal of the materials available on record as well as the impugned judgment, does not warrant any intervention of this court inasmuch as it appears that basically no perversity nor any violation of natural justice has been noticed in the findings of the departmental authority as well as the departmental appellate authority. 4. By assailing the impugned judgment Mr. Lodh, the learned senior counsel has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has committed error of law in not considering the glaring perversity, being apparent on the face of the records in the findings of the disciplinary authority. It is also his case that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the present appellants. It is also submitted with vehemence that no case of theft was ever proved in the departmental proceeding and as such the finding appeared to be based on no evidence. Under such facts and circumstances of the case of learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the impugned punishment. It is also submitted with vehemence that no case of theft was ever proved in the departmental proceeding and as such the finding appeared to be based on no evidence. Under such facts and circumstances of the case of learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the impugned punishment. According to him though the departmental authority initially imposed the following punishment : - 1. Time scale increment of Head Constable Paramash Bhattacharjee shall be kept held over for a period of one year w.e.f. the date of next increment without cumulative effect. 2. Time scale increment of 4 other constables as mentioned above shall be kept held for a period of six months in each case w.e.f. the date of next increment without cumulative effect, the appellate authority has enhanced the same ordering that the pay of the petitioners be reduced to the minimum of their pay scales for a period of one year w.e.f. the date of their next increment fell due. Mr. Lodh has forcefully submitted that such enhancement was also not in accordance with law. In support of his submission Mr. Lodh has relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in (Yoginath D. Bagde, appellant v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., respondents) wherein the Apex Court held that the judicial review is always available when departmental proceedings suffers from perversity or unreasonable finding where there is no evidence on record. There is no second opinion about such established principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court. But taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ratio of the case so cited by Mr. Lodh in our opinion, has no applicability herein. 5. It appears that the Enquiry Officer as well as the appellate authority in every stage had taken due care to comply with the legal procedure in proceeding with the departmental enquiry prescribed under the law and completed the same without any deviation therefrom. Ultimately all the charges levelled against the appellants were found to be proved. All throughout the proceeding, it is seen, the appellants were afforded ample opportunity of hearing. Eventually the appellants begged for mercy and prayed for lesser punishment for survival of their family from the financial distress. Ultimately all the charges levelled against the appellants were found to be proved. All throughout the proceeding, it is seen, the appellants were afforded ample opportunity of hearing. Eventually the appellants begged for mercy and prayed for lesser punishment for survival of their family from the financial distress. The appellate authority also after giving adequate hearing to them came to the conclusion that since all the charges had been proved against the appellants, they were liable for such enhanced punishment and accordingly after considering the appellants' all pleas with all sympathy, the enhanced punishment, as already stated above, was passed by the appellate authority. The power of the appellate authority as regards the enhancement of punishment has not been disputed. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the writ petition so preferred by the writ petitioners-appellants and consequently, we fully agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge. 7. The writ appeal accordingly fails and stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed