JUDGMENT The Court: In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the Inquiry Report dated 26th December, 2002 submitted by the Inquiry Officer with reference to a departmental proceeding, punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority by its order dated 3rd September, 2003 and the order of confirmation of such decision of disciplinary authority by the appellate authority by its order dated 29th September, 2003 and the decision dated 7th July, 2004 by disposing of the "memorial" as filed as per statute which is nothing but in the nature of review by the superior authority that is the highest authority of the organization of National Insurance Company Limited, namely, the Chairman cum Managing Director confirming the decision of punishment. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : "(a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities to act in accordance with law and to cancel and/or set aside and/or recall and/or quash the impugned enquiry report dated 26/12/2002 made by the Enquiry Officer, the order dated 3/9/2003 made by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 29/12/2003 made by the appellate authority and the memorial disposed of by the respondent No. 2 on 7/7/2004; (b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue directing the respondent authorities to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court all records and papers relating to the instant case, so that the same may be perused and conscionable justice may be rendered; (c) A writ of and/or in the nature of prohibition do issue prohibiting the respondent authorities from acting in terms of or (ii) pursuance of or on the basis of the impugned enquiry report dated 26/12/2002 made by the Enquiry Officer, the order dated 3/9/2003 made by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 29.12.2003 made by the appellate authority. (d) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers above; (e) Rule Nisi be made absolute if no cause or if no sufficient cause be shown by the respondents; (f) Stay of operation of the order dated 3/9/2003 made by the disciplinary authority; (g) Stay of operation of the order dated 29/12/2003 made by the appellate authority; (h) The respondent No. 1 be directed to pay your petitioner's monthly salary of Rs. 22,000/- in full with all previous dues/salaries as per the Service Contract dated April, 1971 without any deductions; (i) Ad interim orders in terms of prayers above; (j) Costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the respondents; (k) Such further or other order or orders, be made and/or direction or directions be given us to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper." Fact of the writ application. 3. The petitioner while acting as Development Officer in Division-XVII of the National Insurance Company Limited hereinafter referred to as insurance Company faced departmental proceeding initiated in terms of the charge-sheet dated 2nd April, 2002 alleging, inter alia, thereto that the petitioner failed to maintain devotion to duty and thereby committed misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the Company, which is unbecoming of a public servant, along with charge of misappropriation of Rs. 31.735/- as collected as actual insurance premium under comprehensive cover for one year from the different insured’s. In the statement of imputation of misconduct, specific particulars were mentioned, giving the names of the insureds whose comprehensive cover notes were changed in the office copy showing a third party premium for one month only by tampering the original cover notes. In response to such charge-sheet dated 2nd April, 2002 the petitioner did not deny the statement of imputation under Annexure-2 but submitted that in view of the usual practice for procurement of business for the Company from the motor car dealer, namely, M/s. Ritchie Motors, the petitioner relied the dealer about preparation of the papers on proposals and cover notes and it was done as per usual practice. Petitioner, accordingly, prayed for lenient consideration of the lapses by condoning the irregularities by submitting his reply dated 25th April, 2002. The preliminary enquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer on 6th September, 2002 when the petitioner pleaded guilty and did not deny the documents. However, the departmental proceeding initiated and petitioner wanted an assistance of a co-employee, which was rejected. The preliminary enquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer on 6th September, 2002 when the petitioner pleaded guilty and did not deny the documents. However, the departmental proceeding initiated and petitioner wanted an assistance of a co-employee, which was rejected. After holding the domestic inquiry, the Inquiry Officer though held that the petitioner was guilty of the charges but in the finding it was mentioned that us the premium were tendered by cheques, there was no scope to defalcate and/or misappropriate the amount of premium and the disciplinary authority suspected that the operation to defraud the Company was done by the dealer with the tacit support and approval of the petitioner, the delinquent. The Inquiry Report was served and the petitioner made a reply thereof. Punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority under the Service Regulation of company by demoting the petitioner to Grade-II rank fixing the basic pay to the minimum of that scale as well as directing recovery of the amount of Rs. 31,735/- Against such punishment, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority who confirmed the decision of the disciplinary authority and thereafter a memorial was filed, which was also rejected. Petitioner alleged in the writ petition that there was violation of principle or natural justice as no opportunity was given to place the petitioner's case through one of his colleagues in terms or the Service Regulation, that when there was a finding of the Inquiry Officer himself that petitioner did not defraud the Company as the amounts were accepted by cheque and further when as per usual practice the petitioner out of anxiety to increase the business when adopted such policy, there was little scope to pass any penalty in the nature of demotion to Group-II scale as well as realization of the amount allegedly defrauded. 4. This writ application has been opposed by filing affidavit-in-opposition by the Insurance Company and original records also were produced to satisfy the Court that there was manipulation of the figure of premium amount in respect of the original qua the carbon copy, whereas in the original it was shown as comprehensive policy for one year accepting, the total premium amount but in the carbon copy, a figure of less amount of one month coverage only was noted. It has been contended vehemently that there was no breach of natural justice us petitioner was heard at length and as the proof of misconduct was based on documentary evidence, namely, the original copy of the premium policy and the carbon copy thereof and the cheques as submitted to the Insurance Company and in view of non-lenial of the authenticity of the documents and more so acceptance of the imputation as raised in the Annexure-II of the charge-sheet, there was little scope to urge that natural justice principle was violated. It is contended that there was no necessity to proceed with departmentally further in view of the admission of guilt in the reply to the charge-sheet as filed praying consideration of the irregularity in lenient manner and admission of the guilt in the preliminary inquiry, but the Insurance Company following the service rule heard the delinquent for completing the departmental proceeding, wherein also the delinquent did not allege anything about the documentary evidence. It is further contended that the Court of Law may be slow to disturb the decision of the fact finding body, the disciplinary authority, which ultimately was confirmed not only by the appellate authority but also by the superior authority of the Company rejecting the memorial filed as per the statute. 5. An, affidavit-in-reply has been filed reiterating the fact that there was no misappropriation of money as per report of the Inquiry Officer and that the complainant, namely, the insured persons whose cases were referred to in the statement of imputation were never examined. It is further stated that as the punishment imposed was heavier without considering the age old policy of the Insurance Company directing orally to the Development Officers to cover more premium policies from different purchasers of motor vehicles, proportionality doctrine will rescue the petitioner. 6. The respective parties have urged at length referring the different judgments. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Arunava Ghosh appearing for the petitioner has contended to that effect: (1) Following a practice as prevalent, if anything is done, same is not a misconduct. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Prasanta Kurnar Basu vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2003(4) CRN 87, at para 34. (2) That appointment of Inquiry Officer along with charge-sheet reflected total mala fide in the matter. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Prasanta Kurnar Basu vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors, reported in 2003(4) CRN 87, at para 34. (2) That appointment of Inquiry Officer along with charge-sheet reflected total mala fide in the matter. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna & Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 343 , (3) Procedural lapses are not at all the misconduct. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Dipankar Sengupta &. Anr. vs. United Bank of India & Ors., reported in 1999(1) LLJ 208 . (4) Suspicion cannot be considered as a proof in view of the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Reliance placed to the judgment passed in the case Nand Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in AIR 197R SC 1277 and Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., reported in 1999 Lab.I.C 437. (5) Mere statement in the Inquiry Report about sufficiency of misconduct docs not satisfy the rule of evidence. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Sher Bahadur vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2002(7) SCC 142 . 7. Countering the aforesaid contention it is the submission of the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Ghosh of the Insurance Company to this effect : (1) If the charges are based on documents, there is no necessity of any oral evidence further to prove the matter if the documents are admitted by the delinquent. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Tara Chand Vyas vs. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority & Ors., reported in 1997(4) SCC 465. (2) After admission of the charge detailed in the imputation of misconduct being of Annexure-2 as well as after admitting the same in the preliminary inquiry, there was no scope of any further inquiry in the matter to prove the charge. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Central Bank of India Ltd. vs. Karunamoy Banerjee, reported in 1967(2) LLJ 739 , Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution vs. Educational Appellate Tribunal & Anr., reported in 1999(7) SCC 332 , Dr. Anil Bajaj vs. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research & Anr., reported in 2002 (2)SCC 240 . Anil Bajaj vs. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research & Anr., reported in 2002 (2)SCC 240 . (3) When documents were placed and verified by the delinquent and if there is some evidence in the matter, it is a settled law that Court will not interfere to find out the "adequacy or reliability" by substituting its own view. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed, in the cases Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) vs. A.T. Mane, reported in JT 2004(8) SC 103, High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shashikant S. Patil & Anr., reported in 2000(1) SCC 416 , U.P. State, Road TPT Corpn. & Ors. vs. Musai Ram & Ors., reported in 1999(3) SCC 372 , and R.S. Saini vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in 1999(8) SCC 90 . (4) In the departmental proceeding the strict proof following the Evidence Act is not required but preponderance of probability would suffice to impose penalty. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank & Ors., reported in 2003(3) SCC 583 , Cholan Roadways Ltd. vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam, reported in JT 2005(1) SC 116, (5) When charge is based, on documentary evidence there is little scope of application of principle of natural justice by offering full-fledged hearing. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the cases Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr. vs. Ramjee, reported in AIR 1977 SC 965 , State of Madhya Pradesh vs. R.P. Sharma reported in JT 1996 (9) SC 6. N.K. Prasada vs. Government of India & Ors., reported in 2004(6) SCC 299 , Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. vs. Girdharilal Yadav, reported in 2004(6) SCC 325, and Viveka Nand Sethi vs. Chairman, J & K Bank Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2005(4) SCALE 587. (6) About the definition of the misconduct, following judgments has been relied upon by the Apex Court passed in the cases Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Sohanlal, reported in 2004(8) SCC 218 , J.A. Naiksatam vs. Prothonotary & Senior, Master, High Court of Bombay & Ors., reported in 2004(8) SCC 653 and Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Etawah & Ors. vs. Hotilal & Anr., reported in JT 2003(2) SC 27, (7) Integrity of a person dealing with the public money is to be judged on serious angle and same would be a clear case of misconduct reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.7.C.. Etawah & Ors. vs. Hotilai & Anr., reported in 2003(3) SCC 605 . (8) Proportionality of the punishment imposed only could be considered by the Court when the punishment is shocking with reference to the charge as proved and there is little scope by the Court to interfere with such. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank & Anr. vs. Munna Lal Jain, reported in JT 2005(1) SC 70, wherein the Apex Court relied earlier judgment in the case Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors. vs. P.C. Kakkar, reported in 2003(4) SCC 364 . 8. Having regard to the aforesaid factual matrix of the case and the argument as advanced, the only point emerged whether it is a fit case to exercise the power of judicial review by interfering with the findings of the Inquiry Officer culminated to a punishment. 9. From the writ application, affidavit-in-opposition and the reply, the following facts are revealed : (1) A memorandum of charge was issued on 2nd April, 2002 wherein the article of charge framed was annexed as Annexure-I and statement of imputation of misconduct was annexed as Annexure-II, Those Annexure I and II are set out herein below : "ANNEXURE-I ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI OM PRAKASH TEWARI, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CALCUTTA DIVISION NO. XVII, (UNDER SUSPENSION) Shri Om Prakash Tewari, while functioning as a Development Officer under Divisional Office-XVII, Kolkata, National Insurance Co. Ltd., during the year 2000, failed to maintain devotion to duty and committed misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the Company and in a manner unbecoming of a public servant inasmuch as Shri Tewari has misappropriated Rs. 31,735/- by collecting the actual/excess motor premium under comprehensive cover for one year from different insureds and depositing only the third party premium for one month in the office. When the same was questioned by certain inpureds, the balance actual premium was deposited in the office by issuing a fresh cover note as explained in the Statement of Imputation of Misconduct. When the same was questioned by certain inpureds, the balance actual premium was deposited in the office by issuing a fresh cover note as explained in the Statement of Imputation of Misconduct. Shri Om Prakash Tewari, violated Rules 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii) of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 and committed misconduct under Rule 4(1)(5) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975. ANNEXURE-II STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT FRAMED AGAINST SHRI OM PRAKASH TEWARI, DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISION-XVII, KOLKATA. Shri Om Prakash Tewari, while functioning as a Development Officer under Divisional Office-XVII, Kolkata, National Insurance Co. Ltd., during the year 2000, misappropriation Rs. 31,735/- by collecting the actual/excess motor premium under comprehensive cover for one year from different insureds and depositing only the third party premium for one month in the office. When the same was questioned by certain insureds, the balance actual premium was deposited in the office by issuing a fresh cover note as explained below; (1) Shri O.P. Tewari has issued a cover note bearing No. 099170 on 10.1.2000 by collecting a premium of Rs. 7,480/- and mentioning that the vehicle is covered "comprehensively", but deposited only Rs. 106/- changing the office copy of the cover note to "Act" and date of coverage to one month. When the insured Smt. Sharmila Mishra demanded the policy copy, Shri Tewari tampered the original cover note to Act only and Shri Tewari, by this way, misappropriated Rs. 6,987/- of Company's fund. (2) Secondly, Shri Tewari issued a cover note bearing No. 157465 on 28.2.2000 to Shri Anup Pal Chowdhury by covering new vehicle comprehensively for one year and collecting a premium of Rs. 8,024/-. Whereas Shri Tewari deposited Rs. 106/- against the said cover note, when the insured demanded for policy, Shri Tewari issued another cover note bearing No. 157464 for Rs. 7,989/- and deposited Rs. 6,673/- in the office, in this case, Shri O.P. Tewari manipulated an amount of Rs. 1,210/-. (3) Thirdly, Shri Tewari issued a cover note bearing No. 157174 on 31.3.2000 for Rs. 9,629/- to Smt. Tanima Chakraborty, covering her vehicle comprehensively for one year. Whereas Shri Tewari changed the office copy of Rs. 106/- and deposited the same. When demanded the policy, Shri Tewari issued another cover note bearing No. 320028 on 19.12.2000 by mentioning the premium as Rs. 7,237/-, By this way, he retained the Company's fund of Rs. 9,629/- to Smt. Tanima Chakraborty, covering her vehicle comprehensively for one year. Whereas Shri Tewari changed the office copy of Rs. 106/- and deposited the same. When demanded the policy, Shri Tewari issued another cover note bearing No. 320028 on 19.12.2000 by mentioning the premium as Rs. 7,237/-, By this way, he retained the Company's fund of Rs. 9,523/- with him for 9 months and finally misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,911/- collected from the insured. (4) A cover note bearing No. C-320039 was issued by Shri Tewari on 26.12.2000, covering a new Opel Corsa by collecting a comprehensive premium of Rs. 2,000/- for one year from Shri Shyamal Pal, whereas Shri O.P, Tewari deposited Rs. 373/- in the office, showing the vehicle covered as "Act only" for one month and misappropriated the balance of Rs. 21,627/-. Thus, Shri Om Prakash Tewari, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Company and in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and hereby violated Rules 3 (1) (i) (ii) (iii) of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 and committed misconduct under Rule 4(1)(5) of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975." (2) By letter dated 25th April, 2002, the delinquent employee did not deny the statement of imputation but had set up a plea that the same was done to procure the business of Company and thereby prayed for lenient consideration of lapses. This letter is very vital, which reads to this effect : "To The Sr. Divisional Manager & Competent Authority, Date: 25-04-2002. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Calcutta Divisional Office No. XVII Jeevan Sudha (6th Floor), 42C, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata - 700 071. Dear Sir, Re: MEMORANDUM dated 2nd April, 2002. Please refer to your above-mentioned memorandum along with statement of Articles of charges and other annexures. In this connection I am constrained to state that in respect of the charges stated in the Annexure-II, I cannot deny whatever have been stated therein as the cover notes have been issued by me. However, facts remain that for procurement of business for the company from the motor car dealer point i.e. M/s. Richie Motors, I had to reply on the dealer for completion of proposals and cover notes. However, facts remain that for procurement of business for the company from the motor car dealer point i.e. M/s. Richie Motors, I had to reply on the dealer for completion of proposals and cover notes. However, on 3 number of occasions complete details have not been provided by the dealer and as a result of which incomplete proposals/cover notes have been provided to me along with remittances by the said dealer and in turn my office always used to show eagerness to accept premiums even without complete information. Over a period of time huge amounts of premiums have accumulated and kept in CD a/c. maintained in the name of M/s. Richie Motors. It is also a fact that my proposals/cover notes which have been submitted have not resulted in the policies. The irregularities which are mentioned as charges against me have occurred under above circumstances. Though I cannot deny my responsibilities, I wish to submit to the concerned authorities that : (1) I pray for lenient consideration of my lapses and give me an opportunity to work with honesty by following proper procedures and practices in future in the Company. (2) To have a thorough investigation in the functioning of my Divisional Office in respect of the issues mentioned above, before my case is considered, and oblige. Yours faithfully Sd/-(O.P. TEWARI) D.O. N.I.C. Ltd., Div-XVII, (3) In the Disciplinary Inquiry, a preliminary meeting dated 6th September, 2002 was held to identify the issue wherein the delinquent was present and signed the document by pleading guilty. The same is set out hereinbelow for effective adjudication : "Disciplinary inquiry in respect of Mr. Om Prakash Tewari, Development Officer attached to Div.-XVII, Kolkata vide memorandum dt. 02.04.2002. Minutes of the preliminary meeting held in the premises of the Bentinck Street Branch, Kolkata on 06.09.2002 on the charges levelled against Mr. O.P. Tewari as per Annexure-II of the memorandum dt. April 2nd, 2002. Members Present: Mr. S.K. Gupta, I.O. Mr. G. Bharti, P.O. Mr., O.P. Tewari, C.O. I.O. Mr. Tewari are you aware of memorandum of charge-sheet Dt. 02.04.2002. C.O. Yes. I.O. Aforesaid charge-sheet along with article of charge framed against you vide Annexure-I, statement of imputation vide Annexure-II, List of witnesses vide Annexure-III and list of documents vide Annexure-IV based on which charges were framed against you been delivered to you. C.O. Yes. Tewari are you aware of memorandum of charge-sheet Dt. 02.04.2002. C.O. Yes. I.O. Aforesaid charge-sheet along with article of charge framed against you vide Annexure-I, statement of imputation vide Annexure-II, List of witnesses vide Annexure-III and list of documents vide Annexure-IV based on which charges were framed against you been delivered to you. C.O. Yes. I.O. The charges are read out as per the wordings enumerated in memorandum dt. April 2nd, 2002. Do you plead guilty to the charges framed against you or not. C.O. Yes. I.O. The preliminary hearing is adjourned today with advice to P.O. to submit listed documents as per Annexure-IV. Further, C.O. is also advised to attend the date (will be communicated later) for verification. Signature of members present together with a copy of this minutes of this hearing handed over, Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Mr. O.P. Tewari Mr. G. Bharti Mr. S.K. Gupta C.O. P.O. I-O." (4) Subsequently the petitioner by his letter dated 28th November, 2002 that is about three months from the date of preliminary inquiry had set up a plea that a full-fledged inquliy proceeding should be launched allowing him to represent seeking assistance of a competent person upon contending, inter alia, that petitioner had little knowledge in English and whatever submitted in the preliminary inquiry was not understood by him. However, this representation was in English and petitioner signed in English. (5) The respondent, Insurance Company proceeded with the full-fledged departmental inquiry, the documentary evidences as per exhibit were discussed and placed for verification and necessary comments by the delinquent was noted. On the basis of such, following decision was reached by the Inquiry Authority : "Observation and comments from the Inquiry Officer : The C.O. had in his letter dt. 25.4.2002 addressed to the Sr. Divisional Manager of Division-XVII, Kolkata tendered his reply to charges levelled against him vide memorandum dt. 02.4.2002. It is understood that the C.O. procured premium from M/s, Ritchie Motors and the charges against him pertains to business originated therefrom. There seems to be no consistency in the statement of the C.O. relating to vehicular particulars not being made available from the dealer at the time of insurance of cover notes. It is a futile attempt on the part of the C.O. to give a non-substantial excuse to deviate the accusation finger from him. There seems to be no consistency in the statement of the C.O. relating to vehicular particulars not being made available from the dealer at the time of insurance of cover notes. It is a futile attempt on the part of the C.O. to give a non-substantial excuse to deviate the accusation finger from him. It is observed from all the cover notes (refer to exhibit Nos, PE-1, PE-2, PE-3, PE-4, PE-6, PE-7, PE-8 & PE-9) that bears the basic information required for issuance of policy. Hence, the argument of the C.O. do not hold ground. It would not be out of place to mention here that Development Staff who are authorized to issue cover notes are responsible persons. It is expected of them to observe utmost precautions. Therefore, the flimsy pretext given by the C.O. in his letter dt. 25.4.2002 tantamount to dereliction in duty. Now, for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that an incomplete proposals/cover notes were provided by the dealer to the C.O. but it is then the onus of the concerned person to collect the necessary details prior to submitting the records at the office subject to observance of established norms. The absence of necessary details in the cover note does not give the C.O. a liberty to manipulate, especially the amount charged, the period of insurance and nature of policy. It is important to point out here that the C.O. when confronted by the insured then deliberately issued another cover note to cover up the malpractices. It is also observed that the premium tendered were through cheques. Subject to fulfillment of certain basic entries made in the negotiable instrument, it is not possible to defalcate or misappropriate the amount. In the light of the above, the undersigned suspect that the operation to defraud the Company involves the dealer as well i.e. M/s. Ritchic Motors, of course with the tacit support and approval of the C.O. This argument is supported from the fact that the cheques were of M/s. Ritchie Motors and the C.O. attempted to cover up whenever confronted by the aggrieved parties i.e. the insureds named in the Annexure-II of memorandum dt. 02.04.2002 instead of informing the malpractices to his superiors. The C.O. have acted in a manner detrimental in the interest of the Company. 02.04.2002 instead of informing the malpractices to his superiors. The C.O. have acted in a manner detrimental in the interest of the Company. Conclusion : The undersigned after having scrutinized the records examined evidences put up by the P.O. and also analyzing the circumstantial evidences, the I.O. conclusively opines that the charges levelled against Mr. O.P. Tewari, the accused are true. This observation is also in tandem with the C.O. having accepted the responsibilities of specified charges levelled against him in his letter dt, 25.4.2002 (appearing in the veiled form) and have also pleaded guilty in the preliminary hearing dated 06.09.2002 and in the regular hearing dt. 31.10.2002. This report is prepared without prejudice. Placed before the Competent Authority for consideration. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Gupta Sr. Branch Manager (Bentinck Street Branch) & Inquiry Officer" Kolkata Date: 02.12.2002 (6) In response to the letter of delinquent dated 28th November, 2002, a parawise comment also was filed by the Inquiry Officer by making the same as part and parcel of the Inquiry Report, which is reads to this effect : "Supplementary Annexure" The para-wise observations of the Inquiry Officer against letter dt. 28.11.2002 of the C.O. addressed to the undersigned forming part of Inquiry Report dt. 02.12.2002. The C.O. was allowed to 30 days reckoned from the date of last regular meeting dt. 31.10.2002 to present anything relevant concerning charges levelled against him. Notwithstanding the fact that the C.O. had pleaded guilty in the very first session of preliminary hearing dt. 06.9.2002 and had not opposed "pleading guilty" when the P.O. had stressed upon this during the regular hearing dt. 31.10.2002. Although the C.O. was given an opportunity to present "anything relevant" but his letter dwells on irrelevant matters. Observations of the I.O. Para No. of letter dt. 28.11.2002 Para 1. Agree. Para 2. Agree, the commission of inquiry could not be held for reasons enumerated in para 3 of page 1. Para 3. The provisions of Rule 25(8) of the CDA is not applicable in this case since the C.O. had pleaded guilty at the very outset in the preliminary hearing dt. 06.9.2002 and have not opposed "pleading guilty* when the P.O. had raised this issue in the regular hearing dt. 31.10.2002. The argument put forward now by C.O. is contemplated as a tactic to delay the process. Para 4. The allegations of the C.O. are devoid of truth. 06.9.2002 and have not opposed "pleading guilty* when the P.O. had raised this issue in the regular hearing dt. 31.10.2002. The argument put forward now by C.O. is contemplated as a tactic to delay the process. Para 4. The allegations of the C.O. are devoid of truth. There are no instances of undesirable delay in proceedings and all along the C.O. was given ample opportunity to participate in the proceedings. At this moment, the C.O. trying to vitiate the proceedings of this commission is looked upon as an attempt to raise false and unsubstantial elements. Para 5. Unsubstantiable and misleading. When the C.O. can understand the charges framed against him vide memorandum dt. 02.4.2002 and can tender his reply vide his letter dt. 25.4.2002- how is it possible that the C.O. did not understand the meaning of the sentence "Do you plead guilty to the charges framed against you or not?" The answer "Yes" to the specific question was recorded in the minutes of the meeting because he understood the connotations or else he would have definitely disputed by not affixing his signature, Again, when the P.O. laid stress on "pleading guilty" in the next regular meeting dt. 31.10.2002, the C.O. did not oppose to usage of the word in the context it was used. Para 6. The I.O. and the P.O. are Hindi speaking poisons. The mother tongue coincide-dentally are also Hindi. The entire proceedings from very inception were carried out in Hindi only for the convenience of all concerned. Only the minutes of the proceedings were recorded in English. The reply of the charges framed against C.O. were tendered in English and surprisingly, this particular letter dt. 28.11.2002 is also written in excellent English. This proves the fact that the C.O. is only trying a dilly-dally methods to circumvent a dodge justice. Sd/- Sanjay Kumar Gupta Sr. Branch Manager (Bentinck Street Branch) & Inquiry Officer. (7) Inquiry Report was served and the delinquent got an opportunity to represent and a punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority by holding to tlus effect : "From all counts and taking a cue from the contents of the penultimate para of the report of Inquiry Officer, it can be concluded that the charge-sheeted employee acted as a minor of the kingpin who designed the heinous financial crime against the unsuspecting customer and for defrauding the Insurer. Busting the racket of unscrupulously and cunning dodgers and their trickery is beyond the purview of the departmenteil proceedings and inquiry and should best be wrested with the specialized bureau. As far as the charge sheeted employee's complicity in siphoning off the revenue of the Institution, in league with the organized racket, his admission of acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the organization, have all been rummaged out and he deserves to be meted out the exemplary major penalty in "REDUCTION TO A LOWER SERVICE OR POST" He should further be posted out to an area where he is debarred from playing with public funds. It is issued without prejudice to the provisions of other rules of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975." In imposing the punishment, the disciplinary authority considered all the documents and identified the charge-sheeted employee's role in the matter in view of his own documents as prepared, namely, the cover notes signed by delinquent. (8) An appeal was preferred assailing that punishment order to the appellate authority. The appellate authority also considered the matter and rejected the appeal by his decision dated 29th December, 2003 on accepting the views of the disciplinary authority and thereafter a memorial was filed to the Chairman cum Managing Director, which also was rejected by the order dated 7th July, 2004, which reads as follows : "ORDER Whereas a charge memo dated 02.04.2002 together with Annexure I to IV was issued to Shri O.P. Tewari, Development Officer Grade II, Kolkata Division XVII of National Insurance Co. Ltd. under Rule 25 of General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal)" Rules, 1975 as amended up to date, by the Senior Divisional Manager & Disciplinary Authority; And Whereas on denial of charges by Sri Tewari, Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 30.7.2002 and Inquiry Officer having examined witnesses and document, submitted his report inter alia holding the charge proved : And Whereas Competent Authority after examining the Inquiry Report imposed penalty of reversion to the rank of Grade-II Development Officer along with recovery of Rs. 31,745/- on Shri O.P. Tewari vide order dated 28/08/2003; And Whereas against the order of Competent Authority Shri Tewari preferred appeal before the appellate authority for consideration of his appeal and appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 29th December, 2003 : And Whereas being aggrieved by the Order of appellate authority Shri Tewari has preferred this Memorial on the ground that his integrity was impeccable before this charge-sheet was issued against him and he never participated in the inquiry. He also stated that his representation dated 29th November, 2002 was not considered in accordance with law; And Whereas, the, undersigned having considered the grounds of 'Memorial' vis-a-vis Memorandum, evidences and Inquiry Officer's Report finds that Shri Tewari could not bring any new ground for consideration of the Memorial and decision arrived at by the appellate authority is just and proper and there is no ground to consider the Memorial; Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercising the power conferred under Rule 40 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1975 as amended up to date, thereby upholds the Order dated 29th December, 2003 of the appellate authority and rejects the Memorial preferred by Shri O.P. Tewari in confirming the penalty of "Reversion to the rank of Grade-II Development Officer fixing the basic pay to the minimum along with recovery of Rs. 31.735/-" Sd/- (H.S. Wadhwa) Chairman-cum-Managing Director Shri O.P. Tewari & Competent Authority Under Rule 40 GI (CDA) Rules, 1975 as amended up to date Development Officer, Grade-II National Insurance Co. Ltd. Division-XVII, Kolkata. 10. Having regard to those factual matrixes, this Court is of the view that the delinquent got full opportunity of hearing by placing his case before the Inquiry Officer. Delinquent submitted all his representation in English and signed also in English and accordingly his letter dated 28th November, 2002 contending his lack of understanding of English language was nothing but to wriggle out from the admission made in the preliminary inquiry, which was an afterthought reaction, hence this Court is not accepting the same as a genuine grievance legally sustainable. The Insurance Company proved the charge from the documentary evidence and the delinquent in his first reply to the charge-sheet on 2nd April, 2002 has clearly admitted the Annexure-II documents, wherein there was clear cast of tampering of the documents of the premium policy papers, namely, cover notes with reference to the original and carbon copy. The language used by the delinquent in the reply of the chargesheet is to this effect: In this connection I am constrained to state that in respect of the charges stated in the Annexure-II, I cannot deny whatever have been stated therein as the cover notes have been issued by me". With that submission and a plea of course about the prevalent policy, the delinquent submitted to condone the lapses by making the following contention: "The irregularities which are mentioned as charges against me have occurred under above circumstances. Though I cannot deny my responsibilities, I wish to submit to the concerned authorities that : (1) I pray for lenient consideration of my lapses and give me an opportunity to work with honesty by following proper procedures and practices in future in the company. In the preliminary inquiry on 6th September, 2002 when the delinquent was asked whether he was pleading guilty or not. The delinquent answer came as "yes". 11. The representation as filed by the petitioner, namely, reply to the chargesheet, the subsequent representation dated 28th November, 2002, the show-cause of the Inquiry Report, the appeal as preferred to the appellate authority and the memorial as filed to the head of the organization, all were written in English and the petitioner signed in English and accordingly the proceeding as followed using the English language cannot be said as in violation of principle of natural justice, on the plea as alleged that the petitioner had knowledge in Hindi language only and had no knowledge of English language as urged. 12. It is settled law that principle of natural justice is not an unruly horse and it does not require to follow mechanically in all types of cases. 12. It is settled law that principle of natural justice is not an unruly horse and it does not require to follow mechanically in all types of cases. Once, the delinquent admits the guilt and the documentary evidences, namely, the cover notes including its carbon copies irrespective of the plea that to secure the better business of the organization the petitioner committed those things, the same cannot be an answer to condone the petitioner's guilt as is based on rigid factual findings of the Inquiry Officer. It is true that a suspicion was made about bigger conspiracy. Further it is true that as the amounts were deposited by cheque, there was no defalcation of money, but integrity, honesty of an employee when is the subject-matter of the inquiry proceeding, there is little scope by this Court to overturn the factual findings and thereby to substitute the quantum of penalty as imposed. It is not the duty of the Court of law to reduce the penalty and doctrine of proportionality has no applicability in such type of cases. The applicability of proportionality doctrine in administrative law having its diverse depth of consideration, namely, it is the primary rule of the administrator to deal with the matter, whereas it is the secondary role of the Court of law involving fundamental freedoms to deal with the issue. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case Union of India & Anr. vs. G. Ganayutham, reported in 1997(7) SCC 463 , It is also a settled proposition of law that when administrative auction is assailed on discriminatory ground under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the principle of primary review is for the Courts by applying the "proportionality doctrine" but when the administrative action is questioned as arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the principle of secondary review based on Wednesbury principle applies. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Union of India & Ors. vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Anr., reported in 2003(7) SCC 285 . Even recently the Apex Court has considered the matter at length and has held that as consideration of proportionality doctrine is based on the different factors, a Court of Law will be slow to interfere with any order for punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding. vs. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu & Anr., reported in 2003(7) SCC 285 . Even recently the Apex Court has considered the matter at length and has held that as consideration of proportionality doctrine is based on the different factors, a Court of Law will be slow to interfere with any order for punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding. Reliance has been placed to the judgment passed in the case Commissioner of Police & Ors., vs. Syed Hussain, reported in 2006(3) SCC 173 , wherein even the recent trends of England for considering the doctrine of proportionality instead and place on doctrine of "irrationality" has been dealt with the view that it depends upon the factual matrix of the case. The relevant paragraphs 9 to 13 reads to this effect; "9. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that as the respondent did not commit any misconduct in discharge of his official duty, a case has been made out where doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. The disciplinary authority, learned Counsel would submit, while exercising its statutory power of imposing punishment must act reasonably while exercising its jurisdiction. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Om Kumar vs. Union of India. It was furthermore pointed out that in England instead and place of doctrine of "irrationality", the doctrine of reliance has been placed on R. vs. Secy. Of State for the Home Deptt., ex p Daly. 10. It is one thing to say that order passed by the statutory authority is wholly arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and thus liable to be set aside, but it is another thing to say that the discretionary jurisdiction exercised by such authority should not ordinarily be interfered with by a superior court while exercising its power of judicial review in less one or the other ground upon which and on the basis whereof the power of judicial review can be exercised, exists. 11. It is not the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the impugned order of punishment smacks of arbitrariness so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to impose such punishment is also not in question. 12. 11. It is not the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the impugned order of punishment smacks of arbitrariness so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to impose such punishment is also not in question. 12. Thus, even assuming that a time has come where this Court can develop "administrative law" by following the recent decisions of the House of Lords, we are of the opinion that it is not one of such cases where the doctrine of proportionality should be invoked. In ex p Daly it was held that the depth of judicial review and the deference due to the administrative discretion vary with the subject-matter. It was further stated: (All ER p.447, para 32) "It may well be, however, that the law can never be satisfied in any administrative field merely by a finding that the decision under review is not capricious or absurd". As for example in Huang vs. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt. referring to R. vs. Sccy. of State of the Home Deptt., ex p Daly it was held that in certain cases, the adjudicator may require to conduct a judicial exercise which is not merely more intrusive than Wednesbury, but involves a full-blown merits judgment, which is yet more than (what) ex p Daly requires on a judicial review where the Court has to decide a proportionality issue. 13. It is, therefore, beyond any doubt or dispute that the doctrine of proportionality has to be applied in appropriate case as the depth of Judicial review will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case." 13. In the instant case even the doctrine of proportionality as urged regarding quantum of punishment, accordingly, cannot be interfered with by substituting the punishment, as even by following the intensity of review under 'secondary review" principle to lest as to whether punishment imposed was arbitrary to face wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the facts proved and admitted does not lead a scope of judicial review as principle of Wednesbury arbitrariness has not been fulfilled. 14. 14. Furthermore, in the instant case, it is an admission on the part of the delinquent and having regard to such admission there was even no scope to urge violation of principle of natural justice on the ground that assistance of a co-employee was not allowed. Even in the case of admission of the charges, there is no scope to follow a full-fledged departmental proceeding, far to say consideration of the principle of natural justice. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution vs. Educational Appellate Tribunal & Anr., reported in 1999(7) SCC 332 and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1999 (6) SCC 237 . Furthermore, it is a settled law that natural justice principle to be viewed in the angle of prejudice theory as the delinquent got opportunity even to verify the documents, namely, the cover notes as prepared by him and admitted the charge, there was no prejudice caused even if he was not allowed to be assisted by any co-employee. Reliance may be placed to the principle of prejudice Acory to the case State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma, reported in 1996 (3) SCC 364 . Natural justice principle is limited and contoured by prejudice theory also has got a firm root in the justice delivery system in India. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2783 , and Syndicate Bank vs. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 SC 2198 . 15. It is a settled law further that the High Court sitting in the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not exercise the power of appellate authority but simply exercise the power of judicial review only on the limited grounds, namely, (i) illegality; (ii) arbitrary action; (iii) irrationality and (iv) unreasonableness as per Wednesbury principle. 16. Under the anvil of the aforesaid judgments and considering the judgments relied upon by the respondent, this Court is of the view that there is no case made out to interfere with the findings and observation of the Inquiry Officer, decision of the disciplinary authority, order of the appellate authority and the subsequent rejection of memorial by the superior authority of the organization. It is a settled law that the integrity and honesty of an employee to be looked into by the organization itself and the Court of Law will not assess the gravity of such adjudication to substitutes its own finding. 17. However, learned Advocate for the respondents, Insurance Company since has submitted before this Court that there was no defalcation in the real sense, in that view of the matter. The Court is quashing that portion of the order whereby and where under Rs. 31,735/- as directed to be recovered from the impugned decision without disturbing the punishment of lowering the grade to the Grade-II. Writ application is accordingly partly succeed to that extent of quashing of the recovery decision of alleged defalcated money and it stands dismissed, so far as the other prayers are concerned, namely, on punishment, lowering the position to the Grade-II in the minimum pay scale etc. as impugned. Pratap Kumar Ray, J.: Appeal allowed in part.