JUDGMENT 1. - By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, by which he has been removed from service after holding departmental enquiry against him. 2. The petitioner was serving as Assistant Manager in the respondent Rajasthan Financial Corporation and during the period between September 1995 to October 1995, he was discharging his duties as Branch Manager and he was also required to make recovery of the loans advanced to various units. In this capacity, he had gone to effect recovery of certain loan amounts in a camp organised by the respondent corporation at Phulera and at that time, it is alleged that he had recovered Rs. 15600/- from one Ramesh Chand Kumawat brother of the original loanee Mohanlal. The respondent corporation advanced loan to one Mohan Lal, proprietor of Kumawat Mukesh Steel Furniture, Phulera. The said loanee had died on 10-12-1989. Since the documents were in the custody of the corporation, the brother of the loanee Ramesh Chand Kumawat paid up the said loan amount of Rs. 15600/- in cash to the petitioner, but according to the corporation, the said amount was not credited in the account of the corporation and subsequently, said Ramesh Chand Kumawat made a complaint against the petitioner and that is how the enquiry proceedings started against the petitioner. On the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that charge against the petitioner for misappropriation of the said amount was proved and ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the seriousness of the allegation against the petitioner, imposed the penalty of removal from service against the petitioner. It is the aforesaid penalty order of the Disciplinary Authority which is impugned in this Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is true that the petitioner at the relevant time had received Rs. 15600/- from said Ramesh Chand Kumawat, but after receiving the amount, since the petitioner found that the notes were not in good condition, he returned the aforesaid amount back to said Ramesh Chand Kumawat and he took back the receipt given to the said person. According to the petitioner, he has not committed any misconduct as after receipt of the amount, he realised that the currency notes were not in good condition, therefore, he had not kept the amount with him. According to the petitioner, he has not committed any misconduct as after receipt of the amount, he realised that the currency notes were not in good condition, therefore, he had not kept the amount with him. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently, the petitioner obtained an undertaking from Ramesh Chand wherein he has stated that the petitioner had handed over the amount back to him. It is also the say of the learned counsel for the petitioner that said Ramesh Chand would not have waited for such long time and would have tried to take back his documents lying with the corporation and therefore, there is no substance in the complaint made by the said person. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the corporation initiated departmental proceedings against petitioner at the instance of the respondent No. 3 Shri L. S. Keniya, who was Deputy Manager in the Corporation and the said officer was keeping grudge against the petitioner and therefore, he tried his best to see that the petitioner is involved in some case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though it is true that the decision of the department can be challenged by statutory appeal, but since the Chairman is the signatory of the impugned order of removal from service, there is no meaning in preferring appeal as the Chairman would also be sitting for deciding such appeal. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in any case, the penalty inflicted upon the petitioner is on higher side as the amount involved in the matter is only Rs. 15600/- and therefore, a penalty other than removal from service could have been inflicted on the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry and since he was not present, ex parte enquiry was held against him. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Disciplinary Authority may be set aside and appropriate order for reinstating the petitioner in service may be passed. 4. On behalf of the respondents the Writ petition has been opposed on various grounds. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Disciplinary Authority may be set aside and appropriate order for reinstating the petitioner in service may be passed. 4. On behalf of the respondents the Writ petition has been opposed on various grounds. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that disputed question of facts may not be decided by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that when there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, this writ petition cannot be entertained and the apprehension of the petitioner that since the Chairman had passed the impugned order as Disciplinary Authority, the appeal is meaningless, is not proper apprehension. He further submits that on appreciation of the evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority has found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are established. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent Corporation and on absolutely flimsy grounds, he has tried to defend himself that after receiving the amount since the currency notes were not in good condition, he returned that amount back. It is submitted that even said Ramesh Chand has filed a complaint and also filed an affidavit, wherein he has clearly mentioned that even though he had tried to get his documents back, the petitioner had not returned the same and that the said affidavit is self-explanatory and further that the petitioner had tried to tamper with the evidence by obtaining another affidavit from said Ramesh Chand. It is also argued that considering the fact that the petitioner was serving on a highly responsible post of Assistant Manager in the respondent Corporation and that after receiving the amount, he has kept the same with him for considerable period and according to him, he subsequently gave the same back to Ramesh Chand, therefore, such person cannot be allowed to be retained in service and this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with the impugned penalty order. 5. I have heard both the learned counsels and gone through the record. 5. I have heard both the learned counsels and gone through the record. The following points are as such not in dispute : (a) That the petitioner was appointed on a very responsible post of Assistant Manager in the respondent Rajasthan Financial Corporation and during the period between September to October 1995, he was responsible for recovery of loans. (b) That the petitioner is a highly qualified person as it is pointed out to the Court that after joining the service, he has completed the course of Chartered Accountancy. (c) That he attended the loan recovery camp organised at Phulera and recovered the loan amount on behalf of the respondent corporation. (d) He recovered the amount of Rs. 15600/- in October 1995 from one Ramesh Chand Kumawat, brother of the original loanee Mohanlal, who died in the year 1989. (e) The said amount has not been credited to the account of the corporation. (f) Subsequently, said Ramesh Chand Kumawat filed a complaint in the year 1997 that the documents lying with the corporation were not delivered to him, even though the amount has been paid to the petitioner by him during the loan recovery. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, which is not in dispute, it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. In this connection, it is required to be noted that the say of the petitioner that since the amount recovered from Ramesh Chand Kumawat was given back to him immediately as the notes were not found to be in order, has rightly not been believed by the Disciplinary Authority. It is required to be noted that the petitioner had not prepared any inspection note in this behalf, and placed the same on the record of the Corporation, as the petitioner was required to communicate this fact after reaching to his office. It is also required to be noted that as per the say of the petitioner, he returned back the said amount to Ramesh Chand and at that time he had taken back the receipt given to him, which is placed on record as Annexure-1 in the compilation, but the petitioner has admittedly not placed the aforesaid receipt on the record of the Corporation. The said receipt of cancellation was kept by him all throughout and he produced the same during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings. The said receipt of cancellation was kept by him all throughout and he produced the same during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings. The aforesaid fact clearly suggests that the petitioner has tried to tamper with the evidence and even subsequently tried to obtain an affidavit from the said Ramesh Chand Kumawat as the said affidavit was also produced during the course of enquiry proceedings. If the petitioner had got the said receipt, he would have immediately placed the same on record of the Corporation after reaching to his office on the same day. Apart from said fact, it is also required to be noted that the petitioner has never sent any reminders to the loanee to pay back the amount again. It is an admitted fact that no such reminders were ever sent by the petitioner. 7. Considering the aforesaid background of the matter, in my view, the Court cannot reappreciate the evidence as if it is deciding a departmental appeal and come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority. The circumstances indicated above justify the action of the Disciplinary Authority in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed misconduct. This Court, therefore, would not like to interfere with the finding of the Disciplinary Authority in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Under these circumstances, I do not find any substance in the say of the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The petitioner has subsequently qualified himself as a Chartered Accountant and was discharging such responsible duty with the corporation, could have taken the steps by putting the record straight by placing his inspection note that he has received the amount and gave it back to said Ramesh Chand. He could have placed the cancellation receipt purported to be given by him to said Ramesh Chand on the official record on that very evening, which he was not required to keep at his house. Under these circumstances, in my view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in coming to the conclusion that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is proved and it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. 8. Under these circumstances, in my view, the Disciplinary Authority was justified in coming to the conclusion that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is proved and it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that on the relevant date on 3-9-1998, since the petitioner was sick, he requested for adjournment of the disciplinary proceedings, but the same was not done. 9. In the affidavit in reply it is pointed out that the petitioner has been given reasonable opportunity, but he was not interested in cross-examining the witnesses who were examined by the corporation. It is required to be noted that in this connection, as per the Enquiry Report, relevant portion of which is at page 61 of the compilation, the Enquiry Officer has observed that the petitioner appeared on 17-4-1998, but absented on 7-5-1998. Thereafter, again he was present on 12-8-1998, when the case was fixed for 3-9-1998 for evidence. On 13-9-1998, the petitioner absented without giving any intimation and ultimately, ex parte proceedings were conducted against the petitioner. In any case, the Enquiry Officer in his report has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner are proved and that the petitioner himself has chosen not to appear on various occasions in the enquiry. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend his case before the enquiry officer. Looking to the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioner after accepting the amount did not credit the same in the account of the Corporation and kept the same with him for a long time. Not only that, he had tried to tamper with the evidence. The petitioner, who was serving on a responsible post, has committed a serious misconduct and even though opportunity was given to him from time to time, he did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity to defend his case and in fact, the petitioner has not tried to avail the same. It is not in dispute that the petitioner gave detailed reply to the show cause notice and explained the circumstances in his reply and after considering the aforesaid material on record, ultimately the impugned order of penalty was passed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner gave detailed reply to the show cause notice and explained the circumstances in his reply and after considering the aforesaid material on record, ultimately the impugned order of penalty was passed. Considering the said aspect of the matter, I do not find any substance in the say of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not given proper opportunity to lead his evidence. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that the amount involved in the matter is only Rs. 15600/- and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is on the higher side and therefore, the department may be asked to reduce the penalty suitably. In my view, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the department was justified in passing the impugned order of penalty as the petitioner was dealing with public money and it is not relevant whether the amount involved is small or not. This Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute the order of penalty unless it is found that the same is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. In the instant case, the petitioner, who has temporarily misappropriated the amount, has even tried to create evidence in his favour by taking flimsy defence that after receiving the money, he returned the same to the loanee on the ground that the currency notes were not in good condition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence on record, in my view, it can never be said that it is a case of no evidence or that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity to defend his case in the enquiry. It also cannot be said that the penalty is on higher side. 11. Before parting with this order, it is required to be mentioned that during the course of hearing, it was suggested to the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner would like to avail the remedy of departmental appeal, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner is not willing to do the same. Therefore, this Court has examined the merits of the case by going through the documents on record. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******