Judgment :- Challenging the Order of the Respondents ordering recovery of Rs.90,241/-, towards cost of shortage of 8.790 M.Ts of M.S.Channels, during the delivery taken from the railways, the Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows – 1. The Petitioner while working as Stores Custodian Grade I Transport, had been deputed to M/s.SAIL Bangalore for arranging to dispatch Iron and Steel raw materials i.e. M.S.Channel 200 x 7.5 mm to Korukkupet, Chennai. The Petitioner had gone to Bangalore and on 16.05.1991, he had dispatched iron and steel materials in three wagons from SAIL Private siding Channasandra [CSDR] Bangalore to Korukkupet, Chennai. Out of the three wagons, two wagons were received at Korukkupet Goods Shed [KOKG] on 10.06.1991 and 16.06.1991 respectively, with correct weighment. 2. 2. The third wagon No.WR 13402 arrived at Korukkupet sent under R.R.No.715131 dated 16.06.1991 arrived on 20.08.1991 after an abnormal delay of about ninety days. The Petitioner, the then Stores Custodian, had attended Korukkupet Goods Shed on 20.08.1991 to clear the consignment. Out of total despatch of 492 M.Ts, delivery was taken only for 40.410 M.Ts of M.S.Channels in the third wagon, with a shortage of quantity of 8.790 M.Ts and the cost of the shortage materials short is Rs.90,241/-. 2. 3. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board [in short, the TNEB], has filed application O.A.No.1/40/94 before the Railway Claims Tribunal under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act for recovery of Rs.90,241.50, together with costs, for non-delivery of materials consigned by Rail. Holding that the applicant/TNEB has not established the shortage and that delivery was effected under Clear Receipt, Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application by the Order dated 11.07.2003. 4. As there was shortage by 8.790 M.Ts., charge was framed against the Petitioner in Memo dated 10.01.1999, alleging that due to his negligence in duty, the Board has sustained loss of Rs.90,241. The Executive Engineer, North Chennai Thermal Power Station, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry on the charges framed against the Petitioner. Holding that charge has been proved, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority issued second Show Cause in the memo dated 31.08.1998. Inspite of opportunity, the Petitioner did not submit any reply to the said Show Cause Notice. Holding that charge has been proved, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority issued second Show Cause in the memo dated 31.08.1998. Inspite of opportunity, the Petitioner did not submit any reply to the said Show Cause Notice. The second Respondent confirmed the punishment proposed in the Show Cause Notice i.e. Recovery of Rs.90,241 from the Petitioner towards the cost of shortage of 8.790 M.T.s of M.S.Channels. As against that Order of punishment of recovery, the Petitioner filed appeal to the third Respondent – Chief Engineer. By the Order dated 08.01.2001, the third Respondent has dismissed the appeal, which is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. Assailing the impugned Order of punishment, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner interalia raised the following contentions:- "At the time of unloading the consignment at Chennai, three officers have accompanied the Petitioner and the Petitioner being the Lower Level Officer, he cannot be held responsible for the shortage; "The Petitioner had taken every efforts to arrange for a private agency to do reweighment, which was not properly taken note of by the Enquiry Officer and the authorities; "In various correspondence between TNEB and Railway, stand taken by TNEB before the Claims Tribunal would substantiate the Petitioners claim that neither the Petitioner nor any of the Officers of the TNEB could be held responsible for the shortage. .4. On behalf of the Respondents, the learned Counsel Mr.Vaidhyanathan, has submitted that once the finding of facts based upon appreciation of evidence are recorded by the Enquiry Officer and by the Appointing Authority, exercising Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Court will not normally interfere with the same. It was further submitted that the various correspondence now relied upon by the Petitioner were not produced before the Enquiry Officer and the same cannot be referred for the first time in the Writ Petition. 5. On the materials produced, the Enquiry Officer found that the charge of negligence is proved. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer as satisfactory. In a catena of decisions, it is well settled that High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a Court of appeal over the decision of the authority holding of departmental enquiry. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer as satisfactory. In a catena of decisions, it is well settled that High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a Court of appeal over the decision of the authority holding of departmental enquiry. High Court is concerned to determine whether enquiry is held by the authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf and whether rules of natural justice are violated or not, whether there is some evidence, which the authority, entrusted with the duty to hold enquiry, has accepted the same and found that the delinquent Officer is guilty of the charge. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not the function of the High Court,, to review evidence and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. [see State of Andhra pradesh & Others Vs. Sree Rama Rao - AIR 1963 SC 1723 ; Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K.Chopra - AIR 1999 SC 625 ; The High Court of Judicature At Bombay Vs. S.Patil & Another - AIR 2000 SC 22 . .6. In this Writ Petition, it is only to be seen whether the Order is passed on no evidence and perverse. In so far as the first contention that there is delay in framing charges is concerned, that itself is not a ground to interfere with the findings and impugned Order of punishment. In normal circumstances, unexplained delay in framing charges might constitute denial of opportunity to the Petitioner to defend himself. Delay in framing charges and delay in commencing the enquiry has to be considered in every case with reference to the facts of that case and examined whether delay has caused prejudice to the charged official and deprived him of the opportunity of putting forward his defence effectively. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the delay in framing the charges has deprived the Petitioner, the opportunity to defend himself. Satisfactory explanation is discernible for the delay in framing charges. Delay cannot be attributed wholly to the Disciplinary Authority. It was caused only on account of correspondence with Southern Railway. Regarding the shortage of its material, TNEB was corresponding with the Railways, making claim for compensation. Satisfactory explanation is discernible for the delay in framing charges. Delay cannot be attributed wholly to the Disciplinary Authority. It was caused only on account of correspondence with Southern Railway. Regarding the shortage of its material, TNEB was corresponding with the Railways, making claim for compensation. O.A.No.1/40/94 was filed in the year 1994 and TNEB was pursuing the claims. When TNEB was corresponding with Railways, the delay in framing the charges is not fatal. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that at the time of unloading the consignment, Higher Officers have accompanied the Petitioner and while so, the Petitioner, who is a Lower Level Officer, alone has been held responsible. TNEB has denied this as factually incorrect and stated that on 20.08.1991, none of the officials accompanied the Petitioner to take delivery. On 20.08.1991, the Petitioner himself had given a letter to Chief Grade Clerk, Korukkupet Goods Shed [KOKG], Southern Railway. In the said letter, the Petitioner has signed "for Stores Supervisor/Transport/NMTPP/TNEB/E.Stores/Korattur/ Madras-80". If really Stores Supervisor and other Officers have accompanied the Petitioner, the letter might have been given by the concerned Officer. If other Officers have accompanied the Petitioner, the Petitioner might have very well obtained the signature of the concerned Officer. 8. In his explanation, the Petitioner has stated that the chain links tied over M.S.Channels of the wagon No.WS 13402 was in a disturbed condition and not intact. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that when the Petitioner doubted the disturbed condition of materials, the Petitioner had made arrangement for survey of materials by Approved Private Surveyor M/s.Marine Consultants and Surveyors Ltd., and the said Private Surveyor witnessed the unloading and weighed the materials. Laying stress upon the private survey arranged by the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had taken diligent steps within his reach to arrange for private survey, which ought to have been kept in view by the authorities. When the Petitioner noticed disturbed condition of the materials, suspecting shortage, the Petitioner ought to have insisted upon open delivery and raised protest. But the delivery was taken under Clear Receipt. Regarding shortage, no remarks were made in the Delivery Register at KOKJ. Later weighment was made in a way bridge outside the railway premises and it was not witnessed by railway staff. But the delivery was taken under Clear Receipt. Regarding shortage, no remarks were made in the Delivery Register at KOKJ. Later weighment was made in a way bridge outside the railway premises and it was not witnessed by railway staff. It is relevant to note that the Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim mainly on the ground that TNEB has taken delivery of the consignment under Clear Receipt. .9. Regarding the issuance of Clear Receipt, Petitioner had taken the stand that the receipt was taken by the Railway Staff under force and threat and they got signature in the Delivery Report in the same manner and the Petitioner was not allowed to record the number of pieces delivered. The alleged force of threat was not immediately brought to the notice of the TNEB higher officials. The Petitioner appears to have individually handled the situation by engaging a Private Surveyor. The plea that Clear Receipt was taken under force and threat was taken by the delinquent for the first time in June 1992, long after taking delivery. On the aspect that the Petitioner has individually handled the situation, the Enquiry Officer has found the Petitioner guilty of negligence in discharge of duty. 10. Various letter correspondence between the TNEB and Railways have been relied upon to contend that TNEB has taken the stand that only at the request of the Railway Staff, TNEB was forced to clear the materials without any re-weighment. Taking me through the various letter correspondence, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the contents of the letter would clearly show that the Store Supervisor [Transport] had corresponded with the Railways, giving a clear chit to the Petitioner. All those letters referred are internal correspondences by the Store Keeper, TNEB, to Railways and they were produced in this Writ Petition as Additional Typed set of papers. The learned Counsel for the TNEB has submitted that those letters were neither produced before the Enquiry Officer nor relied upon during enquiry proceedings and the Department had no occasion to explain the contents of those internal correspondences. Since those letter correspondences were not relied upon by the Petitioner before Enquiry Officer, the High Court would not go into the details of internal correspondence. Since those letter correspondences were not relied upon by the Petitioner before Enquiry Officer, the High Court would not go into the details of internal correspondence. Suffice it to note that TNEB might have taken the stand that they have given Clear Receipt under force by the Railway Staff, perhaps to sustain their claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal and thereby, avoid fastening of liability upon the Petitioner. However, TNEB could not succeed before the Railway Claims Tribunal. 11. The argument that the Petitioner cannot be held liable for the loss of materials has no force. As noted earlier, the Petitioner was deputed to SAIL Bangalore for arranging despatch of 492 M.Ts. of M.S.Channel. In the delivery of goods, there was shortage of quantity of 8.790 M.Ts. Be it noted, the Petitioner is not charged for pilferage but only charged for misconduct of negligence in duty. In appreciation of the evidence and the correspondences, the Enquiry Officer has found that the charges are proved. It cannot be said that the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. 12. In appreciation of evidence, once the finding of fact is recorded, the High Court will not interfere, exercising Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not the function of the High Court whether there is evidence and whether that evidence would support the conclusions. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with discretion to impose appropriate punishment. Keeping in view the shortage of 8.90 M.Ts and the proved misconduct of negligence, the Authorities have rightly ordered recovery of Rs.90,241 from the Petitioner. Exercising power of judicial review, the High Court would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment of Rs.90,241 imposed. 13. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.