Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Vide charge-sheet No. P/58530 dated 16th September, 2002 serious allegations were made against the petitioner. The charge was that while he was having custody of tender documents between 24th August, 2001 (date of opening of Techno-commercial bid) and 1st October, 2001 (date of opening of price bid), the closed envelope carrying the price bid of M/s. Laxmi Singh, which was kept in his drawer was opened and then after charging the Form of Quotation, the same envelope was reposted and this was done to benefit M/s. Laxmi Singh, the bidder in the said tender. The petitioner, however, denied the charges and submitted that this all was doings of Mr. A.K. Singh and Mr. G.S. Mahto, Dy. Finance Manager. After the fullest enquiry the Enquiry Committee found that the petitioner could be held liable for the said lapses. It is also to be seen that Mr. G.S. Mahto vide his letter dated 22.10.2001 (Annexure-5) submitted to the Manager, Vigilance, Barauni Oil Refinery that under the persuasions and threats of Mr. B.S. Jha he had made certain interpolations in the tenders submitted by said Mr. B.S. Jha. He made it categorical that he was informed by Mr. B.S. Jha so also Mr. A.K. Singh that the present petitioner was also ready to connive in the matter. However, he does not say in Annexure-5 that the petitioner at any point of time met Mr. Mahto. However, Mr. G.S. Mahto accepted the guilt and submitted to the authority that he was ready and willing to accept the highest punishment under the Code of Conduct of the Corporation. 3. The petitioner has placed extra reliance on Annexure-5 to show that Mr. G.S. Mahto in collusion and connivance with Mr. A.K. Singh have committed this misconduct and the petitioner is being made and scapegoat. At this very point of time it must be seen that Mr. G.S. Mahto, who on the call of his discretion was ready and willing to accept the misconduct committed by him in relation to Jhas tender papers did not speak even a single word about his involvement in Laxmi Singhs tender papers. 4. The defence of the petitioner was that the keys of the room and keys of the drawer were also in possession of Ms. Matidda Minj and Mr. 4. The defence of the petitioner was that the keys of the room and keys of the drawer were also in possession of Ms. Matidda Minj and Mr. A.K. Singh, therefore, they also had a chance to make interpolations in the said tender documents. The enquiry authority has found that Ms. Matidda Minj was on leave at the material time. However, after going through the complete enquiry, the evidence adduced and the arguments submitted, the enquiry authority observed that no direct evidence was available against the petitioner but his involvement in the misconduct cannot at all be ruled out. The findings were candid that the petitioner committed the guilt. 5. After issuing second show cause, the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of reduction to a lower grade i.e. from present Grade C (Rs. 16,000-20,800) to Grade B (Rs. 13,750-18,700) as per the provisions of Rule 29 of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 (amended upto 30th April, 2000). The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order and punishment preferred appeal to the Director (R) and the appellate authority, who by his order dated 18.11.2003 dismissed the appeal observing that the findings recorded by the enquiry authority and the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority were in accordance with law and did not call for any interference. 6. Sri Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel submitted that in absence of positive evidence that the petitioner was involved in the matter and in view of Annexure-5, the confessional statement of Mr. G.S. Mahto, such punishment could not be awarded to the petitioner. On the other hand learned counsel for the establishment submits that in a case of domestic enquiry the authorities have to assess the evidence and record the finding in accordance with law. According to him the authorities did not faultier in the process and procedure and were also absolutely justified in recording the findings. 7. I have already observed earlier that on the call of discretion Mr. G.S. Mahto admitted his guilt that he was involved in tampering the tender documents of Mr. Jha. I pose a question to myself that if Mr. Mahto was open and free in making his confessional statement in relation to Mr. Jhas tender documents then why would he not accept his guilt in relation to Mr. Laxmi Singhs documents. G.S. Mahto admitted his guilt that he was involved in tampering the tender documents of Mr. Jha. I pose a question to myself that if Mr. Mahto was open and free in making his confessional statement in relation to Mr. Jhas tender documents then why would he not accept his guilt in relation to Mr. Laxmi Singhs documents. His silence on that part certainly would not go against the petitioner but would be a subject and a fact to be taken into consideration while appreciating the evidence in relation to the petitioners matter. Annexure-5, in fact, does not hold the petitioner liable because it does not speak about Laxmi Singhs documents but it may be used as a sword against the interest of the petitioner that if Mr. Mahto was honest in making the confession, why did he suppress the other part? 8. The evidence available on the record does show that the petitioner was incharge of the subject and the fact is floating on the surface of the record that the price bid envelope was opened, the said documents were changed and the envelope was re- pasted. In the matter of domestic enquiry rather in the civil matters, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. The authority has to proceed on the principles of preponderance of probability, in a given case, on the proved facts certain presumptions can always be drawn, if the presumptions are in accordance with law then the same cannot be challenged simply on the ground that positive evidence is missing and the chain is not complete. In the present matter the authorities after marshalling the entire evidence, in the opinion of this Court, have recorded a correct finding. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that award of he punishment is on the higher side. To my mind, it was within the discretion of the authority to award the punishment. If the authority looking to the misconduct and lapses committed by the petitioner was of the opinion that he deserves to be reduced to a lower grade then nothing wrong can be found with it. 10. It was next contended that the appellate order contained in Annexure-1/1 is a non-speaking order and therefore it deserves to be set aside and the matter be referred back to the appellate authority to reconsider the facts. 10. It was next contended that the appellate order contained in Annexure-1/1 is a non-speaking order and therefore it deserves to be set aside and the matter be referred back to the appellate authority to reconsider the facts. In the opinion of this Court, a perusal of the said order dated 18.11.2003 (Annexure-1/1) does not sans reasons. The appellate authority appears to have gone through the complete records, the memorandum of appeal and has also given a reason for accepting the findings and the extent of the punishment. Even I am myself, after going through the records of the matter, unable to hold that any other view was possible. I find no reason to interfere. The petition is dismissed.