Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Third Respondent dated 20.09.2000 and to quash the same, as stated therein.) The Petitioner – an Assistant Engineer in the Respondent Corporation seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the third Respondent in respect of the order bearing No.173/4699/DL3/SETC/2000 dated 20.09.2000 dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the punishment of imposing stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and to quash the same. 2. During September 1995, the Petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Recondition Unit of the Respondent Corporation located at M.G.R. Depot Complex, Head Office, Madras. After issuance of Charge Memo, Enquiry and Final Order, he was transferred to Madurai during July 2000. 3. Back Ground Facts:- The Petitioner was charged for allegedly handing over 150 fuel injector nozzles instead of 120 nozzles to M/s. Mohan Fuel Injection Service for recondition work on 28.04.1999. The Petitioner was suspended from service by the order dated 03.05.1999. Levelling eleven charges against the Petitioner, Charge Memo was issued him on 05.05.1999. The Petitioner has tendered his explanation on 11.05.1999. Along with the Petitioner, one Junior Tradesman Mr.Gouthaman, who had delivered 150 nozzles was also given a charge Memo levelling five charges against him. In the enquiry against the Petitioner, the Enquiry Officer found the Petitioner guilty of eight charges levelled against him. In the separate enquiry held, the Junior Tradesman was absolved of all the charges levelled against him. 4. A Second Show Cause Notice dated 11.08.1999 was served on him on 30.08.1999 seeking his explanation for the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. He has submitted his explanation on 04.09.1999 and the same was acknowledged by the Disciplinary Authority on 06.09.1999. The Disciplinary Authority revoked the suspension order and after seven months, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order of punishment by the Impugned Order dated 20.09.2000 imposing the punishment of Stoppage of Increment for one year without cumulative effect. As against the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, the Petitioner preferred the Appeal before the Third Respondent and the Appeal was dismissed on the ground that the explanation given by the Petitioner is not acceptable. 5. As against the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, the Petitioner preferred the Appeal before the Third Respondent and the Appeal was dismissed on the ground that the explanation given by the Petitioner is not acceptable. 5. Stating that the Petitioner had unauthorisedly allowed an outsider to take out 30 nozzles in excess of 120 nozzles mentioned in DSSR, the Respondent Corporation has filed the Counter Affidavit contending that sufficient opportunities were provided to the Petitioner during the course of Disciplinary Authority and in the Enquiry. It is further stated that the Petitioner was issued with Second Show Cause Notice for dismissal and upon consideration of his explanation, the Respondent Corporation has taken a lenient view and the punishment of dismissal was modified as stoppage of Increment for one year without cumulative effect. 6. Contending that fair and reasonable opportunity was not given to the Petitioner, learned counsel for the Petitioner inter-alia raised the following contentions:- / Charge Memo was issued against both the Petitioner and Junior Tradesman – Gowthaman and without valid grounds, the Department held two independent enquiry and the Petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of hearing cross-examining the witnesses who were examined in the enquiry proceedings initiated against Junior Tradesman – Gowthaman; /While the Enquiry Officer absolved the Junior Tradesman from all the charges, the Authority was not justified in imposing punishment upon the Petitioner alone; /The Appellate Authority had not properly considered the points urged by the Petitioner and no valid reasons are assigned for rejecting the Petitioner's Appeal. 7. Countering the arguments, learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the Petitioner was responsible officer, who was in charge of reconditioning unit and when the discrepancy was brought to his notice, the Petitioner without enquiring the same proceeded to correct DSSR. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that only the Petitioner was in direct control of Nozzles and Junior Tradesman was no way responsible and the Enquiry Officer rightly absolved the Junior Tradesman of the charges. 8. The Respondent Corporation operates long distance buses from various parts of Tamil Nadu to the important places of adjoining States in Tamil Nadu. The Petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the Corporation and he was posted to perform duty as in charge of Reconditioning Unit of the Corporation. 8. The Respondent Corporation operates long distance buses from various parts of Tamil Nadu to the important places of adjoining States in Tamil Nadu. The Petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the Corporation and he was posted to perform duty as in charge of Reconditioning Unit of the Corporation. Some of the spare parts of the Reconditioning units were entrusted to outside agency for the purpose of Reconditioning. Any material or property of the Corporation intended to be taken out from the premises of the Corporation is to be done with the permission of the Officer in charge of the Unit through a DSSR with a permission slip for taking out the materials. On 28.04.1999, the Petitioner had permitted to take out the fuel injection nozzles and some other materials for getting the materials Reconditioned through a Out Side Private Agency viz., Mohan Fuel Injection Services Co., by making entry in the DSSR and gate pass through a person. As per the rules, the Security Personnel of the Corporation verified the materials taken out with the DSSR at the depot Gate. On verification of the number of items taken out with the DSSR, it was found by the Security Personnel that the person who had carried out the material was keeping 150 nozzles as against the 120 Nozzles mentioned in the DSSR. 9. On finding that the person was carrying 150 nozzles as against the permitted number of 120 nozzles, the Security Personnel informed the same to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is said to have rushed to the Gate and corrected the nozzles as 150 i.e., the Petitioner is said to have corrected the number of Nozzles with 150 number in DSSR. Since the Petitioner was in charge of the reconditioning Unit entrusted with the responsible position, charge was framed against him. He was also placed under suspension pending disciplinary action. Against the Petitioner, a detailed enquiry was conducted by a retired District Judge. 10. For the same act of lifting excess nozzles, separate Memorandum of Charges were issued to the Petitioner and to the Junior Tradesman and two enquiry were held. The contention of the Petitioner is that the Department was not justified in conducting two independent enquiry on the same alleged misconduct. 10. For the same act of lifting excess nozzles, separate Memorandum of Charges were issued to the Petitioner and to the Junior Tradesman and two enquiry were held. The contention of the Petitioner is that the Department was not justified in conducting two independent enquiry on the same alleged misconduct. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that because of the independent enquiry, the Petitioner had been prejudiced and that he had no opportunity of knowing what has been spoken against the Petitioner in the other enquiry and the Petitioner has been deprived of opportunity of effectively defending himself. This contention does not merit acceptance. The responsibility of the Petitioner and the responsibility of the Junior Tradesman were entirely different. Since the set of responsibilities were different, the enquiry could not have been clubbed. That apart, the enquiry proceedings was initiated in May 1999. Even at that time, the Petitioner has not raised any objection for holding two different enquiry. The Petitioner waited till the conclusion of the enquiry and also imposing of the Punishment and thereafter till the appeal was rejected. Having not raised any objection for conducting two different enquiry in the initial stages, it is not open to the Petitioner to raise objection at this stage. 11. The contention of the Petitioner that the Junior Tradesman has been absolved of the charges and whereas the Petitioner was unjustifiably punished is motivated. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner was the responsible officer, who was in charge of the Reconditioning unit. The Junior Tradesman was the Junior most officer in the lower hierarchy. Junior Tradesman has neither signed in the DSSR nor in other relevant records. The Enquiry Officer has found that Junior Tradesman has only acted upon the instructions of the Petitioner. The contention of the Petitioner that Junior Tradesman was in direct control has no force. As pointed out by the Enquiry Officer, only the Petitioner has signed in the DSSR and the Registers – M3 to M5. The technical workers have not affixed their signatures. Further, only the Petitioner as the Assistant Engineer has signed in the place marked as "Store Control" and at the column marked as "Releaser of Articles". Referring to the signature of the Petitioner in the relevant document, the Enquiry Officer found the Petitioner responsible for lifting up of excess nozzles. The technical workers have not affixed their signatures. Further, only the Petitioner as the Assistant Engineer has signed in the place marked as "Store Control" and at the column marked as "Releaser of Articles". Referring to the signature of the Petitioner in the relevant document, the Enquiry Officer found the Petitioner responsible for lifting up of excess nozzles. The Enquiry Officer has also pointed out the conduct of the Petitioner in not reacting to the discrepancy in the number of Nozzles and that instead of verifying the discrepancy, the Petitioner had only proceeded to correct DSSR. Though this Court is not proposed to go into the adequacy or inadequacy of the materials before the Enquiry Officer, the above aspects are referred only for the purpose of pointing out that only the Petitioner was directly responsible for the reconditioning unit and for releasing of the Nozzles. It cannot be said that the Petitioner was singled out and he was found guilty unjustifiably. 12. The contention of the Petitioner is that his Appeal was rejected without assigning any valid reasons. The Enquiry Officer was a Retired District Judge. By elaborately discussing the evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case and drawing inferences, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the Petitioner are proved. The Report of the Enquiry Officer was given to the Petitioner and he was asked to show cause for the punishment of termination of service. In response to the show cause notice, the Petitioner has submitted his explanation. In consideration of the same, the Respondents had taken the lenient view by imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. By going through all the records particularly, the Report of the Officer, the Appellate Authority / Third Respondent might have subjectively satisfied about the findings thereon. The Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity on the ground of 'non-speaking' order. 13. In STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. By going through all the records particularly, the Report of the Officer, the Appellate Authority / Third Respondent might have subjectively satisfied about the findings thereon. The Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity on the ground of 'non-speaking' order. 13. In STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. S. SREE RAMA RAO (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1723), the Supreme Court has held thus:- "...The High Court is not constituted in a proceedings under Article 226 a Court of Appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry and it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether rules of natural justice are violated or not. Where there are some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court under Article 226 to review the evidence and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But, the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole Judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution...." 14. By consideration of the facts and the enquiry held against the Petitioner, it is seen that the Departmental enquiry was held in accordance with the Rules observing the principles of natural Justice. The enquiry officer was an independent officer viz., a Retired District Judge. By consideration of the facts and the enquiry held against the Petitioner, it is seen that the Departmental enquiry was held in accordance with the Rules observing the principles of natural Justice. The enquiry officer was an independent officer viz., a Retired District Judge. For the grave misconduct of unauthorized lifting of 30 nozzles in excess, the Petitioner was imposed a mild punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The Respondent Corporation has taken extreme lenient view and has imposed a very moderate punishment. It cannot be said that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence warranting exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.