Judgment 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Kumar Labh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 5.12.2005 passed by Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 190 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the writ petitioner against the order of dismissal was dismissed. 3. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner while working as SBSO Ledger Assistant SBSO-I Group at Patna G.P.O. during the period from 11.12.1993 to 22.7.1998. committed fraud with the post office and misappropriated a sum of Rupees eight lakhs and odd by opening an account in his name and in the name of his wife. On the basis of accusations, charges were framed against him which he answered. In course of enquiry, accusations were found prima facie proved and accordingly an enquiry report was submitted on the basis of which, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal against the writ petitioner from services as it was a case of gross misconduct. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed and thereafter the Tribunal also rejected his prayer in O.A. No. 190 of 2003 giving rise to this writ application. 4. Mr. Sinha learned counsel for the petitioner precisely submitted that on the basis of insufficient materials and evidence, the departmental proceeding was concluded and the petitioner was found to be guilty of charges of misappropriation. It is further submitted that no expert was examined so far as the signature of the writ petitioner was concerned and merely on the basis of the statement of the co-employee his signature was proved which was accepted by the enquiry officer and also by the disciplinary authority. Mr. Sinha, however, tried to impress upon the Court that the order of punishment to the extent of dismissal from services would not be justified on the face of the materials on record and specially then no evidence had surfaced before the disciplinary authority as to the identity of the lady who was described as his wife. 5. From the materials on record and also from the impugned order, it appears that in course of enquiry evidence was collected. 5. From the materials on record and also from the impugned order, it appears that in course of enquiry evidence was collected. The enquiry officer being fully satisfied with the documentary evidence, submitted his enquiry report saving that the charges were found to be proved. The order of punishment thereafter was passed which was analysed in appeal in the department itself. 6. From the order passed in appeal, it appears that the petitioner never disputed his signature placed on record before the enquiry officer. 7. It does not appear to be a case of no evidence rather we are satisfied that some evidence was adduced in support of the charges which remained unrebutted. It also appears that the disciplinary authority owing to the nature of guilt, passed the order of dismissal which does not appear to be disproportionate to the guilt. 8. Besides all these questions it would be pertinent to mention here that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution need not go into the details of the sufficiency or otherwise about the evidence nor it would be within its limit to make a judicial review of the order passed by the authorities and also by the appellate forum. 9. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Lalit Popli V/s. Canara Bank, 2003 3 SCC 583 . 10. In view of the facts as stated above and the legal propositions aforesaid, we do not want to enter into the merit of the case as the same has already been tested in appeal. 11. For the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.