Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india challenging the order by which certain penalties have been imposed upon the petitioner after a departmental enquiry. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Divisional officer in New India Assurance Company Limited, Bhopal. He was served with a charge-sheet on 6-7-1990. There were four charges against him. The enquiry officer after holding the inquiry found some of these charges as proved. He submitted his enquiry report dated 18-4-1992 to the Regional Manager. The findings of the enquiry officer on charge No. 1 were that the petitioner issued the cover note No. 400897 in the name of Satnam Lakkad Udyog insuring the Maruti Van MKW 5545 in his handwriting and under his signature. The enquiry officer exonerated him of the charge that he received an amount of Rs. 1912/-under this Cover Note and mis-appropriated it. The Regional manager disagreed with his part of the report and held that this amount was received by the petitioner and he has misappropriated it. The findings of the enquiry officer in respect of the other three charges were that the petitioner inserted the name of shubhlaxmi Harne before the name of "h. M. Harne" in the cover note No. 0113562 by which a scooter was insured and for this reason the Company was held liable to pay compensation in the case arising out of the accident in which this scooter was involved. Shubhlaxmi Harne was the owner of the scooter and if this tempering had not been done in the cover note the liability to pay compensation could not have been fastened on the company. The original cover note was in the name of husband H. M. Harne whereas the owner of the scooter was his wife Shubhlaxmi Harne. On charge nos. 3 and 4 the enquiry officer held that the petitioner did not mention in the office copies of the cover note that the vehicles were hypothecated to the banks and thereby allowed the agents to secure commission which could not have been given to them otherwise. ( 3. ) THE Regional Manager agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer on the charge Nos. 2 to 4. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with a show-cause notice. ( 3. ) THE Regional Manager agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer on the charge Nos. 2 to 4. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with a show-cause notice. The reply of the petitioner was considered by him. He passed the order dated 1-10-1992 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges mentioned above. The penalties which were imposed upon the petitioner were that his basic salary would be reduced by three steps, i. e. , from Rs. 1750/- to 1550/-; the amount of Rs. 1912/- mis-appropriated by him would be recovered from his salary and the amount the company would be made liable to pay in respect of MACT Case No. 7 of 1989 shall be recovered from the petitioner. This amount was Rs. 40,963/ -. The petitioners appeal against this order was dismissed by the Assistant General Manager and the review petition by the General Manager. ( 4. ) THE petitioners case is that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were perverse as these were not based on any evidence but on conjectures and surmises. It is pointed out that the enquiry officer did not make any effort to secure the original cover note No. 400897 and did not call the owner of the Maruti Van in evidence. It is further stated that the finding was based on the photo-copy of the cover note and the opinion of the handwriting expert regarding the handwriting of the petitioner on this cover note was indicisive. It is submitted that the letter written by the proprietor of Satnam Lakkad udyog to the effect that the cover note was given to him by Mr. Mahendra arora and not by the petitioner was wrongly ignored. It is further contended that the findings on charge Nos. 2 to 4 are also faulty. It is also stated that the relevant documents were not produced by the Presenting Officer and, therefore, the truth could not come to light. ( 5. ) THE case of the respondents in the return is that the enquiry was conducted consistent with the principles of natural justice. The findings of enquiry officer are based on documentary and oral evidence and it can not be said that these are perverse or unreasonable. ( 5. ) THE case of the respondents in the return is that the enquiry was conducted consistent with the principles of natural justice. The findings of enquiry officer are based on documentary and oral evidence and it can not be said that these are perverse or unreasonable. These have been upheld by the three senior officers of the Company after perusal and scrutiny of the evidence and therefore, these are not open to interference by the Court. ( 6. ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides and on going through the documents on record this Court is of the opinion that there was no defect in the departmental enquiry. The findings can not be said to be perverse or unreasonable and therefore this Court can not interfere in those findings. The inquiry report shows that there has been an objective appraisal of the evidence and the findings are based on documentary and oral evidence. There has been proper appreciation and the report is well reasoned. So far as charge No. 1 is concerned, the original cover note No. 400897 was not on record but its photo- copy was there. It was proved by two witnesses O. P. Litoria (M. W. 1) and R. K. Sharma (M. W. 2) who were the officers of the company that the photo-copy was made by procuring the original from the insured and then it was returned to him. C. T. Sarwate (M. W. 3) was examined as handwriting expert. He deposed that he compared the handwriting and signature on the photo-copy of the cover note Ex. P-l with the specimen and standard handwriting and signatures of the petitioner and then gave the opinion that these were of the same person. In addition to this there was an earlier statement (Ex. P-4) of the petitioner which he gave to the vigilance officer in which he had admitted that he had issued this cover note though at the instance of another officer M. K. Arora. Thus there was sufficient material before the enquiry officer on which he based his finding and it can not at all be said to be perverse. Once it is held that the cover note was issued by the petitioner then the inference is irresistible that he must have received the amount of Rs. 1912/- mentioned therein unless the petitioner gives a satisfactory explanation in that respect. Once it is held that the cover note was issued by the petitioner then the inference is irresistible that he must have received the amount of Rs. 1912/- mentioned therein unless the petitioner gives a satisfactory explanation in that respect. He has not done so. Therefore, the Regional manager after notice dated 21-7-1992 (Annexure R-7) and hearing the petitioner [who submitted the reply dated 1-9-1992 (Annexure R- 8)] rightly concluded that this amount was received by the petitioner and he has mis-appropriated it. The petitioner appears to have made a false statement in his petition that no notice was given to him. He did not deposit the copies of the cover note in the office and he also did not make over the amount to the company. The proprietor of Satnam Lakkad Udyog during the course of the inquiry gave a letter (Ex. D-4) that the cover note was given to him by M. K. Arora but this appears to be an untrue statement as the signature and handwriting of the petitioner on the cover note have been duly proved. Even if the petitioner sent this cover note to the insured through M. K. Arora his liability is inescapable. ( 7. ) SO far as charge No. 2 is concerned, the petitioner admitted before the enquiry officer that he wrote the name of the owner Shubhlaxmi harne on the cover note though it was originally issued in the name of her husband and for this reason the Claims Tribunal held the company liable to pay the compensation. The name of Shubhlaxmi Harne did not find place in the office copy of the cover note. Similarly the appreciation of evidence on charge Nos. 3 and 4 by the enquiry officer is also proper. The petitioner knew that the vehicles relating to those cover notes were hypothecated to the banks and he made endorsement to that effect on the original but not on the copies and that was the reason that the commission went to the agent and no discount to the owner of the vehicles. ( 8. ) IT is well settled that the Court can not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the enquiry officer if these are not perverse. It can not be said that the findings in the present case are based on "no evidence" or no reasonable person could have reached these findings. ( 8. ) IT is well settled that the Court can not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the enquiry officer if these are not perverse. It can not be said that the findings in the present case are based on "no evidence" or no reasonable person could have reached these findings. In Syed Rahimuddin Vs. Director General, C. S. I. R. , AIR 2001 SC 2418 , it has been held by the Supreme court that the conclusion or findings of fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry can be interfered with by the Court only when there was no materials for confusion or when on the materials the conclusion could not be that of a reasonable man. It has been reiterated in Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank, (2003)3 SCC 583 , that if there is some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the inquiring authority, it is not the function of the Court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding. The inquiring authority is the sole judge of the fact so long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate the finding and the adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court in writ proceedings. ( 9. ) SO far as the quantum of punishment in the present case is concerned it can not said to be disproportionate. The petitioner should be thankful to the Management that a serious view was not taken and he escaped the penalty of dismissal or termination. ( 10. ) THE petition is dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed.