JUDGMENT Ram Mohan Reddy, J The applicant in OA No.359/04 aggrieved by the Order dated 28.7.2004 of the Central Administration Tribunal, Bangalore, has preferred this writ petition. The factual panorama in a nutshell is: 1. The petitioner, a Hindu took in marriage one Kempadevamma on 20.12.1993 which it is claimed was dissolved by a decision of the panchayat consisting of elders of the community, and on the written consent of the wife, by agreement dated 6.7.1995 the petitioner took a second wife by name R. D. Vijayalakshmi on 24.12.1995. The petitioner obtained a decree of divorce annulling the first marriage by Judgment and decree dt. 12.1.2001 in M.C.No.31/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge, Tiptur. 2. The petitioner applied for and secured an appointment as a Civilian motor driver Grade-II w.e.f. 1.12.1996 by order dated 25.1.1996 of the Commodore Indian Navy, Chief Quality Assurance officer, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. On reporting to duty, the petitioner submitted an attestation form dated 1.2.1996 mentioning the name of his wife as Kempadevamma, against column No.5. There afterwards, the petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 7.7.1997 declaring that he had taken in marriage R.D. Vijayalakshmi @ Kempade vamma on 24.12.1995 and yet another declaration dated 16.6.1997 that he had only one wife living. 3. The Authorities having made enquiries over the marital status of the petitioner, were informed by the Police authorities of Tumkur that the petitioner had two wives living viz. Kempadevamma and R.D.Vijayalakshmi. Authorities noticed that the petitioner’s attestation form dated 1.2.1996 contained an interpolation in column No.5 incorporating the name of R.D.Vijayalakshmi alias Kempadevamma, resulting in the issue of a memo dated 15.1.2002 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation which was responded to by a reply dated 27.2.2002, admitting the fact of having taken in marriage Kempadevamma, the first wife and R.D. Vijayalakshmi as the second wife, with the consent of first wife. 4. 4. The second respondent Commodore, the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the petitioner issued a memorandum dated, 27.1.2003, Annexure-A2 enclosing the statement of articles of charge interalia charging the petitioner for having contracted two marriages rendering himself ineligible for Government service in terms of Rule 21 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and that with a view to suppress the two marriages, the petitioner mislead the administration by furnishing a false declaration dated 16.7.1997 about his marital status and the manipulation of the existing entry relating to the particulars of the first wife in column No.5 by interpolating the name of Smt. R.D.Vijayalakshmi, said to be in violation of the Official Memorandum No. 11012/7/2/91-Est(A) dated 19.5.1993, enclosing the statement of imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour, the list of documents and the list of witnesses in support of the charges. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation dated 5.3.2002, Annexure-A3, and being of the opinion that there were grounds to enquire into the truth of the allegations of misconduct appointed an enquiry officer by Order dated 29.4.2003 Annexure A4, followed by the proceedings of enquiry, whence the petitioner was per-mitted to take the assistance of a Co-wor-ker by name N. Bhaskaran, retired Stores- Officer. The request of the petitioner for change of Enquiry Officer was declined by order dated 9.5.2003 Annexure-A7. 5. In the enquiry held on 29.5.2003, the Presenting Officer presented the documents listed in the memorandum of charge dated 27.1.2003 and since the petitioner and his representative had no objections, they were marked in evidence as Exs. S1 to S18, hence the Presenting Officer did not examine the witness. For the petitioner his representative produced two documents viz., the agreement by which his first wife by name Kempa devamma extended consent for the second marriage marked as EX.D 1 and the certified copy of the decree of divorce in M.C.No.37/2000 dated 12.1.2001 of the Civil Judge, Tiptur as EX.D2. With regard to the charge of interpolation in the attestation form dated 1.2.1996 marked as Ex.S 11 in the enquiry, the representative for the petitioner admitted to have made the insertion in the Form during July 1997 with the consent of the Administrative Officer and that there was no tampering of records. The Presenting Officer submitted his written brief dated 29.5.2003. The Presenting Officer submitted his written brief dated 29.5.2003. The Enquiry Officer on 5.6.2003, sought clarification from the petitioner over matters which remained unexplained and would go against the interest of the petitioner. The questions and answers by way of clarification were reduced to writing. The petitioner filed his written brief Annexure-A 10, on 9.6.2003. The Inquiring Officer by report dated 13.6.2003 held the first charge proved i.e., the petitioner had contracted two marriages and had two wives living and the second charge in the negative i.e., interpolation in the attestation form dated 1.2.1996. 6. The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the material on record being of the opinion that the second charge was established, issued a memorandum dated 24.7.2003 Annexure-A11, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 20.8.2003 Annexure-A 12. The Disciplinary Authority on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, held the charges proved and accordingly, dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 29.1 0.2003, Annexure-13. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, who while concurring with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the appeal by Order dated 19.2.2004. 7. The Central Administrative Tribunal did not notice any infirmity in the Orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority calling for interference and by the order impugned dismissed the O.A. 359/2004 filed by the petitioner. 8. We have heard Sri.S.Y.Narasimhan, Learned Counsel appointed as amicus curie for the petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the Union. 9. The offer of appointment dated 23.1.1996 Annexure-A1 states that the appointment will be subject to the conditions mentioned therein including the following conditions: “2(g)(i) xxx (ii) A declaration in the form enclosed. No person (a) who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a spouse living or (b) who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with any person, shall be eligible for appointment to service, provided that the Central Government may, if satisfied that such a marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such person and the other party to marriage and there are other grounds for so doing, except any person from the operation of this rule.” Clause (4) reads thus: “4. If any declaration given or information furnished by you proved to be false or if you are found to have wilfully suppressed any material information, you will be liable to remove from service and such other action as Government may deem necessary.” 10. From the aforesaid clauses in the offer of appointment what is discernable is if the appointment is secured by suppressing relevant facts or falsehood or producing bogus and ficticious document, it cannot but be said that the employer has the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such employee in terms of the Central Civil services (CCA) Rules, 1965. 11. The respondent-authorities having secured information from the jurisdictional police at Tumkur that the petitioner had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence and when the first spouse was living, initiated disciplinary proceedings by issuing the Memorandum dated 27.1.2003 Annexure-A, specifying the charges against the petitioner which reads thus: “Shri. D.K.Nanjundiah CMD Gde-II, CQAE (WE) Bangalore having a spouse (Smt.Kempadevamma) living, contracted plural marriage with Smt R.D. Vijayalakshmi on 24.12.1995 and was thus abinitio ineligible for Govt. service in terms of MHA OM No.25/35/60 Ests (A) dated 9.12.60 under Rule 21 of CCS (conduct) Rule 1964. But with a view to suppress this fact and mislead the administration, he gave false declaration dated 16.07.97 about his marital status after joining Govt. service as CMD Gde-II in CQAE (WE) Bangalore on 1.2.96, in violation of DOP&T OM No.11012/7/91-Estt (A) dated 19 May 1993 and also mani-pulated the existing entry relating to particulars of . his first wife in column 5 of his Attestation form dated 1.2.96 filled in and signed by him, by adding the name of the second wife so as to give an impression that Smt R. D. Yijayalakshmi and Smt. Kempade-vamma are one and the same person. By his above acts, the said-Shri D.K.Nanjundiah CMD Gde-II has violated ofMHA OM No. 25/35/60- Ests (A) dated 09.12.60, under Rule 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, DOP & T OM No. 11012/7/91-Estt(A) dated 19-05.,1993 as also failed to maintain absolute integrity and exhibited unbecoming conducts and thereby violated Rules 3(1) (i) & (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964.” 12. The charges were supported by the documents marked as Exs. S1 to S18 admitted by the petitioner in the enquiry. The charges were supported by the documents marked as Exs. S1 to S18 admitted by the petitioner in the enquiry. While the petitioner, in defence, claimed that his first wife Kempadevamma extended a written consent for the second marriage by executing the agreement Ex.D 1 and the Judgment and decree of divorce dated 12.1.2001 inM.C.No.37/2000 of the Civil Judge, Tiptur marked as Ex.D2. 13. The proceedings of the enquiry, part of the paper book discloses that the petitioner was extended reasonable opportunity of hearing to put-forth his case before the enquiry Officer, who submitted a report returning a finding that the first charge was proved i.e., the petitioner having contracted a second marriage while the first spouse was living, while recording a benefit of doubt with regard to the second charge. The Disciplinary authority on an independent assessment of the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, having reason to believe that the finding of benefit of doubt over the second charge was incorrect, issued a show cause notice (memorandum) to the petitioner to put-forth his say which was responded to by a written reply. The Disciplinary authority, on an independent assessment of the material on record, held the petitioner guilty of the charges and dismissed him from service by order dated 29.10.2003. 14. It is not disputed that Rule 21 of the C~A Rules imposes a restriction on a government servant from contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of an earlier marriage and when the spouse is living. The Official Memorandum dated 9.12.1960 prohibits bigamous marriage, violation of which would disqualify the person concerned for appointment to government service. The declaration in the attestation form dated 1.2.1996, furnished by the petitioner on the date of entry into service did not disclose the contracting of two marriages or the written consent extended by the first spouse to contract a second marriage. The petitioner on the contrary having mentioned the name of Kempadevarnma in the declaration inserted the name of R.D. Vijayalakshmi and the word ‘alias’ in the attestation form so as to mislead the authorities that Kempadevarnma and R.D.Vijayalakshmi are one and the same persons. The petitioner on the contrary having mentioned the name of Kempadevarnma in the declaration inserted the name of R.D. Vijayalakshmi and the word ‘alias’ in the attestation form so as to mislead the authorities that Kempadevarnma and R.D.Vijayalakshmi are one and the same persons. The defence of the petitioner of a valid termination of the marriage with Kempadevamma at the instance of the Panchayatdars of the village and consequent agreement Ex.Dl extending consent for the second marriage stood belied on account of the judgment and decree of divorce dated 12.1.2001 of the Civil Judge, Tiptur, marked as EX.D2. In that view of the matter, the disciplinary authority was fully justified in recording a finding that the petitioner was guilty of the charge of contracting two marriages during the subsistence of the earlier marriage and that too when the first spouse was living. 15. As regards the charges of manipulation of the attestation form, Ex.S-11 by inserting “R.D.Vijayalakshmi alias”, it is admitted by the petitioner that he made the entry, however with the prior permission of the Administrative Officer, whose name he does not know. The disciplinary authority disbelieved the version of the petitioner that the Administrative Officer permitted the manipulation since such a permission was not forthcoming from the records. That apart, the name R.D.Vijayalakshmi the petitioner’s second wife was inserted as an ‘alias’ of Kempadevamma. In other words, petitioner sought to make believe that the person Kempadevamma and R.D.Vijayalakshmi are one and the same person, while the name of his first wife admittedly is Kempadevamma. In our opinion, no exception can be taken to the finding of the disciplinary authority over the charge of manipulation of the entries. 16. Having perused the pleadings and the documents annexed, more appropriately the proceedings of the enquiry, we are fully satisfied that in conducting the enquiry, principles of natural justice and the doctrine of fair play in action are not violated and the petitioner was given a fair hearing to defend himself. 17. Judicial review over finding of facts recorded by a fact finding Tribunal or authority, it is trite is very much circumscribed and limited by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and the High Courts. 17. Judicial review over finding of facts recorded by a fact finding Tribunal or authority, it is trite is very much circumscribed and limited by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and the High Courts. Unless in a given case, the Court finds that the finding of fact recorded by an authority statutory or otherwise, is based on no evidence, it cannot re-appreciate the evidence led before the authority and arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the authority as if the court sits in appeal over the decision taken by the authority. In addition, in a departmental or domestic enquiry allegations leveled against a delinquent can be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is the law declared in Union of India vs Sardar Bahadur. 18. It is now well settled that while reviewing disciplinary proceedings initiated and action taken by an employer against a delinquent employees, the Court cannot go into the question of adequacy or sufficiency of evidence on the basis of which findings are recorded by an Enquiry Officer or disciplinary authority, if the findings are based on some legal evidence, the reviewing courts are not entitled to interfere with the findings. The finding of fact recorded by the Enquiring Officer or disciplinary authority cannot be reversed on re-appreciation of evidence on record. It is elsewhere said that judicial review is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits. The High Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate authority but exercises within the limits of judicial review to correct the error of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice, as held by the supreme court in Raebareli Kshetriya Bank vs. Bholanath Singh and Others. The Apex Court in Sodhi Vs. Union of India and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M.V. Vyavasaya and Company, authoritatively stated that the High Court should not ordinarily enter into disputed question of fact like an appellate court. In State of Orissa Vs. Muralidhar and in State of Madras Vs. Sundaram, the Supreme Court held,’ that the findings of fact cannot be interfered with on the ground that the findings on which it was based was not satisfactory or sufficient. In State of Orissa Vs. Muralidhar and in State of Madras Vs. Sundaram, the Supreme Court held,’ that the findings of fact cannot be interfered with on the ground that the findings on which it was based was not satisfactory or sufficient. In conclusion, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is without merit and is, accordingly rejected.