Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-This special appeal arises from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.01.1999 dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellant while working as Assistant in the Office of Regional Mechanical Engineer was charged with interpolation and forging the signatures in the attendance statement recording the attendance of two employees namely Ogar Ram and Jaswant Singh. A charge-sheet was served upon him, to which he gave reply. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Standing Orders, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Standing Orders of 1965). During the enquiry statement of Narendra Singh Chauhan, Assistant Mechanical Engineer in the Workshop was recorded. He stated that four employees from the Phalodi Depot namely Usman Khan, Mohd. Haroon, Ogar Ram and Jaswant Singh were deputed at Jodhpur for maintenance of the vehicles of Phalodi Depot. Their attendance was to be recorded in the Regional Workshop at Jodhpur. The statement of attendance used to be sent to the Depot Manager, Phalodi for the payment of salary. The appellant Virendra Bhandari was the Incharge of the record and particularly used to maintain the attendance statement. It was reported that Ogar Ram and Jaswant Singh had remained absent in the month of April and May, 1982 but their attendance was fraudulently recorded and payment was made. On close scrutiny of the record he found that in the statement of attendance certain interpolation was done and his signatures were forged to benefit Ogar Ram and Jaswant Singh. On further scrutiny he found that Ogar Ram and Jaswant Singh had remained absent but their attendance was recorded. Inspite of opportunity given the appellant did not cross-examine Narendra Singh Chauhan. The Enquiry Officer taking into consideration the reply filed by the appellant, the statement of Narendra Singh and the relevant record found the charges leveled against the appellant proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer. The Disciplinary Authority taking into consideration the proved misconduct dismissed him from service. It was also found that the appellant was having a track record of misconduct. He was earlier also punished on the charges of willful absence, misbehavior with the higher authorities, consuming liquor while on duty. The punishment awarded remained intact in appeal. Thus, the appellant raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Jodhpur. It was also found that the appellant was having a track record of misconduct. He was earlier also punished on the charges of willful absence, misbehavior with the higher authorities, consuming liquor while on duty. The punishment awarded remained intact in appeal. Thus, the appellant raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Jodhpur. The learned Judge of the Labour Court after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record concurred with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and confirmed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. However, on the quantum of punishment he reduced the penalty from termination to stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect. The learned Labour Court also forfeited the salary from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement. Similarly services of appellant for the purpose of grant of promotion, seniority, gratuity and pension were also forfeited. A direction has been given for fixation of salary in new pay scale on reinstatement at the minimum of the existing pay scale. The appellant challenged the award of the Labour Court dated 20.03.1998 by way of writ petition. The learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court and as such dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel that it is a case of no evidence. He has read before us the charge-sheet and the statement of Narendra Singh Chauhan. It is vigorously argued that the attendance statement was sent from the office of the Regional Workshop at Jodhpur to Depot at Phalodi. Thus, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the person carrying the statement of attendance made the interpolation. 4. Before we enter into re-appreciation of evidence we may seek a guidance in this regard from a decision of the Apex Court in Rai Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Bhola Nath Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 1997 SC page 1908, wherein it is observed, “The High Court, in the proceeding under Article 226 does not act as an appellate authority but exercises within the limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice.” The Court also observed that judicial review is not akined to adjudication of the case on merit as an appellate authority. In the instant case, it is not the case of the appellant that the procedural steps under the disciplinary rules were not followed by the respondent. After the enquiry was concluded and report was submitted, the punishment was inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned Counsel has failed to point out any error of law of procedural error leading to the manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. It is not open for us to examine the evidence as a Court of appeal. However, in the interest of justice, we have again looked into material on record. It is admitted by the appellant that the record as to the attendance of the employees used to be remained with him. The subject record was maintained by him. Jagdish Chandra has stated that the appellant after obtaining his signatures had made interpolation in the record. We do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Labour Court. Thus, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in not interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court. No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. Consequently, the instant appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.