JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia. J.-Petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.12.2003 (Annexure 23) by which he has been punished, inter alia. with dismissal from service and also the appellate order dated 30.1.2004 (Annexure 25) confirming the said order. 2. Petitioner was served with charge dated 9/10.5.2002 (Annexure 16) for defalcation of Government money of Rs. 8,54.433/-. Petitioner participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer in his report dated 6.3.2003 (Annexure 21) found the petitioner guilty. A second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alongwith the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the enquiry officer and passed the impugned order of punishment. On appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the said order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the charge-sheet submitted that the department had already made up its mind that petitioner was guilty. He further submitted that the other officers were responsible for defalcation and not the petitioner. He further submitted that no reasons have been given in the impugned orders. 4. The charge-sheet was submitted on prima facie satisfaction about guilt. It cannot be said that the authorities had made up their mind. 5. The enquiry officer considered all the defences raised by the petitioner. He found that Kameshwar Prasad and petitioner both were guilty. Petitioner had been making entries of all the transactions in the cash book and, therefore, he had knowledge that the amounts were withdrawn second time in the name of one retired person, which he did not bring to the notice of the Executive Engineer. He further found that in no Government departments cash book is maintained in the manner in which it was maintained by the petitioner. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the enquiry officer. He was of the view that such corrupt employee cannot be kept in service. He ordered the following punishments: (i) recovery of half of the defalcated amount i.e. Rs. 7,56.133/- with 12% interest; (ii) dismissal from service; (iii) nothing will be paid apart from the subsistence allowance; (iv) after the decision in the criminal case, if it is found that any further amount is due. the department will be free to recover the same. The appellate authority confirmed the said finding of guilt and punishment. 6. The scope of judicial review under writ jurisdiction is very limited. I do not find any procedural irregularities In the departmental enquiry. the department will be free to recover the same. The appellate authority confirmed the said finding of guilt and punishment. 6. The scope of judicial review under writ jurisdiction is very limited. I do not find any procedural irregularities In the departmental enquiry. The authorities have correctly recorded the findings after taking into consideration relevant aspects of the matter. It has been held in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana (AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2043) that while agreeing with the enquiry report, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss evidence and come to same findings as that of Enquiry Officer and give the same reasons for the findings, and that in such situation, question of non-compliance of the rules of natural justice does not arise. 7. In the circumstances, no interference is called for. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.