SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 24. 7. 2002 passed by Industrial Tribunal-III, Delhi, whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the petitioner was working as a Technical assistant in the Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi. He was holding charge of store of the Department of Anthropology. Head of Department mr. P. S. Mongia issued a letter dated 2nd September, 2001 asking the petitioner to hand over the charge of the store to Mr. L. C. Jain but the petitioner did not hand over the charge and rather took a plea that the Hod had no authority to tell him to hand over the charge. Repeated letters were written to the petitioner to hand over the charge but he refused to hand over the charge with the result that the charge had to be taken over without the help of the petitioner who had proceeded on leave. Almirah and drawers bearing his locks were sealed. A charge sheet was issued to him for misconduct of insubordination and indiscipline and following charges were levelled against him:"a) dis-obedience of lawful orders dated 2. 9. 1981 issued by the head of the Department. b) dis-obedience of lawful orders dated 15. 9. 1981 issued by the Head of the Department. c)disobedience of lawful orders dated 21. 9. 1982 issued by the Head of the department. d)disobedience of lawful orders dated 29/30. 9. 1982 issued by Head of the department. e) disobedience of lawful orders dated 23. 10. 1983 issued by Head of the department. f) non-performance of his duties as assigned to him vide order dated 23. 10. 1981. g) insubordination to his superior, namely, Head of the Department, university of Delhi. i) acts subversive of discipline. " ( 3 ) A departmental enquiry was conducted into the charges and after conducting departmental enquiry it was found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges of disobedience, non performance of duty and insubordination. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by the disciplinary authority of the respondent as a penalty. An application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act was made to the Tribunal for approval of the action since another reference, involving the petitioner was pending. The Tribunal framed following issues:"1. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by the disciplinary authority of the respondent as a penalty. An application under Section 33 (2) (b) of the industrial Disputes Act was made to the Tribunal for approval of the action since another reference, involving the petitioner was pending. The Tribunal framed following issues:"1. Whether proper and valid enquiry was held according to rules of natural justice" 2. Whether the management is entitled to get approval of the claim of compulsorily retiring the workman" ( 4 ) VIDE order dated 12. 7. 1996, the Tribunal held that the enquiry was not conducted as per principles of natural justice. The Tribunal directed the parties to lead evidence as the management had sought opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the misconduct. After recording evidence, appreciating it and analyzing the same, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the management had proved the charge of misconduct against the petitioner by cogent evidence and also held that the workman had committed misconduct of serious nature of disobedience, non performance and insubordination and the punishment awarded to the workman was not disproportionate to the charges proved against him. ( 5 ) THE petitioner challenged the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the award was contrary to the law and perverse. He submitted that Mr. L. C. Jain, to whom he was asked to hand over the charge, could not have been appointed as a storekeeper since he was Senior Technical Assistant. Only a Technical Assistant could be appointed as a storekeeper. The other plea taken is that Head of the department of the Delhi University cannot entrust the storekeeper work to any senior technical assistant. The Rules of the Executive Council of the University clearly provided that the charge of storekeeper can be given only to a technical assistant and not to senior technical assistant. One plea taken by the petitioner is that the Head of the Department used to have duplicate keys of the store with him. Whenever any other storekeeper was on leave, the store was being opened by the Hod and the working of the department was not hampered. There was no question of handing over of the charge since the keys were always with the Hod. Whenever any other storekeeper was on leave, the store was being opened by the Hod and the working of the department was not hampered. There was no question of handing over of the charge since the keys were always with the Hod. ( 6 ) THE petitioner also made allegations against the Head of the department and stated that the Head of the department gave directions for handing over the charge to Mr. L. C. Jain only to cover up the irregularities and lapses made by him and Mr. L. C. Jain. He stated that Mr. Jain runs a shop of smuggled watches and repairs at Tri Nagar and he used to run his business from the store of the University in collusion with Head of the Department. He used to repair watches and clocks of Head of the Department and also used to get their vehicles repaired in his duty time. Mr. Jain, in collusion with Hod purchased store items from his father in law i. e. from M/s Jain Hardware Store and university stationary from the shop of brother of his father in law. The quotations of fictitious firms were being put on record. He made other similar kinds of allegations which I do not consider necessary to enumerate. ( 7 ) IT is undisputed fact that the petitioner was given orders for handing over of the charge of the store which he did not comply with. The Head of the Department wrote to him, one after another, several letters and he replied these letters giving one or the other reasons but did not offer to handover the keys or the charge of the store at any stage and the store charge had to be taken over, ultimately, with the help of a Committee constituted for this purpose and Almirahs and drawers bearing the lock of the petitioner were sealed. Subsequently the lock of these drawers and almirahs were got opened and inventory of the articles lying there was prepared by the Committee. ( 8 ) IN the enquiry as well as before the Tribunal, it was proved by cogent evidence that the petitioner had not handed over the charge. He defied all letters written by Hod on one pretext or the other. ( 8 ) IN the enquiry as well as before the Tribunal, it was proved by cogent evidence that the petitioner had not handed over the charge. He defied all letters written by Hod on one pretext or the other. There is no denial of receipt of these letters, rather each letter has been replied in defiance and he made allegations against the Hod and Mr. L. C. Jain, to whom he had to hand over the charge. ( 9 ) THE reliance was placed by the petitioner on the norms laid down by executive Council in its meeting held on 29. 4. 1975. It is correct that in the meeting of Executive Council, vide resolution No. 52 dated 29. 4. 1975, placed on record, it was decided that in the department of physics and chemistry, Sr. Technical Assistant was to hold the charge of the store, in Department of anthropology and Botany the technical assistant was to hold the charge of the store. The duties of the Sr. Technical Assistant and Technical Assistant were to handle the work of store. In the same Resolution, the Head of the Department was given powers to make changes whenever necessary. The Head of the Department was empowered to run the department and order as per the needs and there were no fetters on the powers of Head of the Department as far as administration of store was concerned. The Hod had powers to assign the charge of store to Sr. Technical Assistant instead of Technical Assistant and the plea of the petitioner that Head of the Departments order asking him to handover the charge, was beyond competence, is baseless. He, in fact, was handed over the charge on the basis of order of Head of Department only. If the order, directing him to take over the charge of store was within the competence of the Head of the Department, there is no reason to believe that the order, asking him to handover the charge was beyond his competence. Moreover, from the Resolution no. 52 dated 29. 4. 1975 is clear that it was within the ambit and scope of the head of the Department to deal with the situation as per his decision. ( 10 ) THE Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that the petitioner had no reason to defy the orders of Head of the Department. Moreover, from the Resolution no. 52 dated 29. 4. 1975 is clear that it was within the ambit and scope of the head of the Department to deal with the situation as per his decision. ( 10 ) THE Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that the petitioner had no reason to defy the orders of Head of the Department. The effect of all the letters written by the petitioner was contagious and spreading indiscipline. He not only disregarded the orders of the Head of the Department but also challenged the authority of the Head of the Department to pass any such orders. ( 11 ) IT is settled law that this Court cannot act as a Court of appeal, re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion. The order of the tribunal can be set aside only if it is based on no evidence or if the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal was such that no reasonable man could arrive at such a conclusion in the face of the evidence. The petitioner has failed to show as to how the order of the Tribunal was perverse. The Tribunal has considered all the rules and regulations and the evidence. The award is based on cogent evidence. Moreover, there is no denial that the petitioner defied the orders of the Head of the Department of handing over the charge of the store despite repeated written orders and written letters and made allegations against the Head of the Department and the colleagues. Making allegations when the petitioner is charge sheeted or when the petitioner is asked to handover the charge, shows mala fides on the part of the petitioner. Making allegations is so easy that anybody can make such allegations, but proving the allegations by producing cogent evidence in support of the allegations is difficult. If the petitioner had any evidence in support of the allegations made by him, he could have lodged an FIR against the persons against whom he had evidence of fraud or cheating. By making allegations against the head of the Department or colleagues, the petitioner could not escape the punishment for his own misconduct. ( 12 ) IN view of my foregoing discussion, I find no merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.