Judgment : 1. Challenging the order of punishment of withholding of increments for 2 years and recovery of a sum of Rs.1,70,752.12 passed by the first respondent by order dated 210. 1998 and confirmed in Appeal by order dated 3. 2007 by the second respondent, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition. 2. The petitioner, who was employed as Assistant in the first respondent/Text Book Corporation came on transfer and joined duty at Chennai on 24. 1995 in the Godown of the first respondent/Corporation. The petitioner took charge of the Godown on 5. 1995. 3. The factual background, which lead to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: .(i) The Chief Internal Auditor, Internal Auditor and Statutory Boards, Audit Department, who conducted the audit on the accounts of the Tamil Nadu Textbook Corporation, had reported in his report that paper stock register for the year 1995-96 maintained at the Adyar Godown of the Tamil Nadu Textbook Corporation had been tampered with and there was an unauthorized deduction against the paper issued in Voucher No. 4924 dated 15. 1995 under 84 cms Reel paper in stock. The audit report had further said that this unauthorized deduction lad to shortage of 7.103 Metric Tonnes of paper valued at Rs.1,70,7512. .(ii) Referring to the Audit Report dated 15. 1997, a charge Memo was issued against the petitioner and two other persons, by name, Boopal and Nedunchezian, viz., Junior Assistant and Godown Superintendent respectively, on 20.6.1997 holding them vicariously liable for the loss of Rs.1,70,752.12 alleging that loss was caused to the Corporation due to wrong entry and tampering of records. Denying the charges, on 26. 1998, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 26. 1998, wherein the petitioner was found guilty for the alleged loss of 20 reels of 84 cms paper. Accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer, an order of punishment of removal from service was ordered by the first respondent on 210. 1998. On Appeal, the punishment order was set aside by the Appellate Authority on 14. 1999 and the matter was remanded by the respondent to the first respondent for do novo enquiry. (iii) Denying the charges, petitioner has submitted his explanation on 22. 1998. On 6. 1998. On Appeal, the punishment order was set aside by the Appellate Authority on 14. 1999 and the matter was remanded by the respondent to the first respondent for do novo enquiry. (iii) Denying the charges, petitioner has submitted his explanation on 22. 1998. On 6. 1999, a fresh Charge Memo was issued against the petitioner alleging and holding him responsible for the loss of Rs.1,70,752.12 and the delinquent Officers viz., Boopal (A.2) and Nedunchezian (A3) in the earlier Charge Memo were cited as witnesses. On receipt of the said Charge Memo, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 16. 1999, wherein, he has denied the charges and stated that the Junior Assistant, by name, Boopal deliberately caused wrong entry and tampered with the records to conceal the loss, which had occurred during his tenure prior to 24. 1995. An enquiry was conducted and the report was submitted on 6. 2002 by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of charges. The first respondent passed an order of punishment dated 3. 2005, whereby two increments were withheld with cumulative effects and also a sum of Rs.1,70.752.12 was ordered to be recovered from the salary of the petitioner by monthly instalments. (iv) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 12572 of 2005 and since, the writ petition was dismissed referring to the alternative remedy of preferring appeal, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 24. 2006. Second respondent has passed a resolution on 12. 2007 has also directed to initiate disciplinary action against the Junior Assistant, by name, Boopal, who, was found to have made wrong entry and tampered with the records and accordingly, on 14. 2007, a Charge Memo and has been issued against Boopal, Junior Assistant. In the enquiry, the said Boopal was found guilty of the charges levelled against him and the order of punishment is yet to be passed. Petitioner challenges the order of punishment of withholding of increments and recovery of a sum of Rs.1,70,7512. 4. Resisting the Petition, the respondents filed counter contending as follows: The writ petitioner was the responsible person for the entire stock available at the Godown, therefore, he is responsible for the material loss of 7.103 M. Tonnes of 84 cms Reel paper at the Godown. 4. Resisting the Petition, the respondents filed counter contending as follows: The writ petitioner was the responsible person for the entire stock available at the Godown, therefore, he is responsible for the material loss of 7.103 M. Tonnes of 84 cms Reel paper at the Godown. The writ petitioner did not hand over 7.103 M.Tonnes of 84 cms Reel paper to C. Sermakkani at the time of transfer of the writ petitioner. According to respondents, this fact would clearly expose the guilt of the writ petitioner that he had certainly meddled with the stock of 7.103 M. Tonnes of 84 cms Reel paper belonging to the respondent-Corporation and caused loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs.1,70.752. The respondents further averred that the disciplinary proceedings was conducted strictly following the procedures contemplated under the relevant Service Rules as well as the principles of natural justice. Further according to the respondents, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner is independent of the proceedings initiated against Boopal. The petitioner is due to retire on 30.4.2011 and since the loss caused by the petitioner is huge, the respondents have statutory duty to recover the loss. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S. Sadasharam has contended that since there was no handling over and taking over of the stock, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the shortage of 7.103 M.Tonnes of 84 cms Reel paper. The learned counsel has further submitted that in the absence of adducing evidence for proving handing over and taking over, the Enquiry Officer was not right in finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The learned counsel has further submitted that P.W.2-Boopal was handling the stock till 5. 1995 and the petitioner was waiting to take over the charge and to cope up with the loss of shortage of stock, only Boopal has tampered with the records and while so, the Department has unjustly let out Boopal and examined him as a witness. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the plea of bias in imposing the punishment upon the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. K.R.A. Muthukrishnan has submitted that the Writ petitioners was solely responsible for the stock in the Godown and without the petitioner issuing the gate pass, the paper cannot move out of the Godown. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr. K.R.A. Muthukrishnan has submitted that the Writ petitioners was solely responsible for the stock in the Godown and without the petitioner issuing the gate pass, the paper cannot move out of the Godown. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that P.W.2-Boopal was a junior Assistant, who was only in-charge of recording the receipts and issuance of stock entries and without the Authority of the petitioner stock cannot move out of the Godown. Placing reliance upon a number of decisions, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that whenever any loss is caused to the Department, on misplaced sympathy, the High Court cannot interfere. 7. Tamil Nadu Textbook Corporation is the State Government undertaking, which supplies free Textbook to the school children from Standard-1 to Standard-XII. For printing the books from its Godown, bulk supply of papers is made to the printers. For the loss of 7.103 M.Tonnes of 84 cms Reed paper, the following charge was framed against the petitioner. “In Paper Release Order No. 1970 dated 14. 1995, 7.103 Tonnes of 61 cm reel was ordered to be issued to Bhagat Printers for printing 6 standard Science (Tamil Medium). Necessary Delivery Note Number 4994 dated 15. 95 was prepared for this and the same was issued to M/s. Bhagat printers after getting necessary acknowledgement for having issued the paper. Instead of deducting the same from 61 cm tree account in the Stock Register by noting Delivery Note No. 4924 dated 15. 1995 as issued to Balcan Printers. The Godown was under the incharge of Thiru S. Petchimuthu, Assistant during this period. As 7.103 tonnes of paper was deducted under 84 cm reel account, the ground balance should have been excess by 7.103 tonnes i.e., 20 Reels. During the transfer of Thiru. S. Petchimuthu on 12. 1995, he should have handed over the excess stock of 7.103 M. Tonnes of 84 cm 20 reels to Thiru. C. Sermakani. But Thiru. S. Petchimuthu did not hand over the excess stock. As Thiru. Petchimuthu, Assistant was in-charge of Godown he is fully responsible for this toss.” 8. During the transfer of Thiru. S. Petchimuthu on 12. 1995, he should have handed over the excess stock of 7.103 M. Tonnes of 84 cm 20 reels to Thiru. C. Sermakani. But Thiru. S. Petchimuthu did not hand over the excess stock. As Thiru. Petchimuthu, Assistant was in-charge of Godown he is fully responsible for this toss.” 8. Taking me through the report of the Enquiry Officer, the learned counsel for the petitioner has forcibly contended that when there was no evidence to prove that stock was handed over to the petitioner and charge list was given, it is difficult to locate the shortage. The learned counsel further contended that when the petitioner joined duty on 24. 1995, P.W.2 who was in-charge of the Godown has not handed over the Godown stocks and consequently, the petitioner has not taken over the Godown stocks by a list of materials, which is required to be prepared on verification of Godown materials and signed by handing over and taking over personnel and sent to the Head Office. 9. The petitioner joined duty in the Godown of the first respondent/Corporation on 24. 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner physically verified the stock for 20 days and then only, he signed and took charge on 5. 1995. When the petitioner has wafted nearly for about 20 days for taking charge, the petitioner was not right in contending that no stock was handed over to the petitioner and no charge list was given to him. 10. The contention of the petitioner is that for stock handling Junior Assistant, by name, Boopal I and Regional Officer, by name, Nedunchezian, are also responsible and no responsibility was fixed upon them. The learned counsel further submitted that there was a favouritism to P.W.2-Boopal and the said Boopal was the main culprit, who tampered with the records and Boopal alone was responsible for the loss, who was AO2 in the first charge memo dated 20.6.1997. .11. The contention of the petitioner that Boopal alone was responsible for the shortage was negatived by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. During the period, the petitioner was in-charge of the Godown and the stocks were in the custody of the delinquent and key of the Godown was said to be in the custody of the delinquent. .11. The contention of the petitioner that Boopal alone was responsible for the shortage was negatived by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. During the period, the petitioner was in-charge of the Godown and the stocks were in the custody of the delinquent and key of the Godown was said to be in the custody of the delinquent. The petitioner was responsible for maintaining of the registers and he was the competent person to issue delivery note and supply paper to the Printers. As rightly pointed out by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner joined in the Godown of the first respondent/Corporation on 24. 1995 and he physically verified the entire stock for 20 days and then only he signed and took charge on 5. 1995. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner nextly contended that the entire proceedings have been-initiated only with reference to the entries in the Godown stock register, but there was no evidence on record to find out that the materials were counted and physically verified with reference to the entry in the stock register and as such, the finding with reference to the stock register entry alone cannot be maintained and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged loss of materials. 13. The contention that the entire findings is based upon the entries in the Godown stock register is not acceptable. To substantiate the charges, the Department has examined P.W.1-Nedunchezian, P.W.2-Boopal and P.W.3-C. Sermakkani, who took charge from the petitioner. As being in-charge of the Godown, the petitioner was responsible for the stock. The Delivery Note No. 4924, dated 15. 1995, relates to 7.103 M.Tonnes of 61 cms Reel paper. Instead of deducting the same from 61 cms Reel account in the stock register, 7.103 M.Tonnes of paper was deducted under 84 cms Reel paper account in the stock register. Since, the entry made in the 84 cms Reel account is a false entry, therefore, there should be an excess stock of 7.103 M.Tonnes must be available on the ground. But, this quantity was not found in the Godown and the excess paper was hot at all handed over to the petitioner’s successor, viz., C. Sermakkani, who was examined as prosecution witness (P.W.3). The entire charges are based upon the stock register and delivery note. But, this quantity was not found in the Godown and the excess paper was hot at all handed over to the petitioner’s successor, viz., C. Sermakkani, who was examined as prosecution witness (P.W.3). The entire charges are based upon the stock register and delivery note. Upon consideration of the documents and evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, Enquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner-the Godown Assistant, who was in-charge of the stock at the relevant time was responsible for the loss of Rs.1,70,752.12, which arose due to the shortage of 7.103 M.Tonnes of 84 cms Reel paper. .14. The learned counsel for the petitioner nextly contended that the Boopal was acting as Godown Assistant from 24. 1995 to 5. 1995 and during the tenure of Boopal, 41 Reel of 84 cms paper were found deficit and to adjust deficit during the tenure of Boopal, Boopal is found to have made wrong entries by tampering with the records. It was further argued that the Appellate Authority has rightly directed disciplinary action against Boopal and accordingly, action has been initiated against the Boopal and in the enquiry. Boopal and accordingly, action has been initiated against the Boopal and in the enquiry, Boopal has also been found guilty of the charges and punishment order is yet to be passed and in such a situation, it is not open to the respondents to maintain the charges against the petitioner and the punishment order issued against him is liable to be set aside. 15. Drawing the attention of the Court to the Report of the Enquiry Officer, the learned counsel for the respondents/Corporation has submitted that the disciplinary charge against the: Writ petitioner is independent of the charges levelled against Boopal. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the charge against the Writ petitioner is not that a wrong entry has been made in the Register/but, there is a loss of stock in 84 cms and the petitioner is charged for the material loss. P.W.2-Boopal has been charged for tampering with the records and for making wrong entries in the register. The petitioner being fully in-charge of the Godown, the material cannot be taken away from the Godown without the knowledge of the stores in-charge viz., the petitioner. P.W.2-Boopal has been charged for tampering with the records and for making wrong entries in the register. The petitioner being fully in-charge of the Godown, the material cannot be taken away from the Godown without the knowledge of the stores in-charge viz., the petitioner. Noticing the nature of duty and responsibilities of the Writ petitioner and the said Boopal, the Enquiry Officer was right in concluding that the Writ petitioner is responsible for the material loss of 7.103 M.Tonnes of 84 cms Reel paper. .16. Most of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner pertain to the appreciation of evidence. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court does not exercise Appellate Jurisdiction. The High Court will interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority only if it is a case of no evidence or if the order suffers from any perversity of approach. For causing loss to the tune of Rs.1,70,752.12 due to shortage of 7.103 M.Tonnes of 84 cms Reed paper, the Disciplinary Authority ordered recovery of the loss of Rs.1,70.752.12, besides stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both ordering for recovery of loss of Rs.1,70,752.12 and also imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect would amount to double punishment and the same cannot be sustained. If all the relevant facts and circumstances and the evidence on record and taken into consideration and if it is found that the evidence establishes misconduct against a public servant, the disciplinary authority is perfectly empowered to take appropriate decision as to the nature of the punishment on the proof of guilt. Once there is a finding as rewards the proof of misconduct, what should be the penalty to be imposed is for the disciplinary authority to consider. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the charge levelled against the. Petitioner is a grave charge of misappropriation and removal/dismissal was the appropriate punishment for the petitioner, who was found guilty of causing loss to the first respondent/Corporation to the tune of 7.103 M.Tonnes of 84 cms Reel paper and in fact, the Disciplinary Authority had taken a lenient view. Petitioner is a grave charge of misappropriation and removal/dismissal was the appropriate punishment for the petitioner, who was found guilty of causing loss to the first respondent/Corporation to the tune of 7.103 M.Tonnes of 84 cms Reel paper and in fact, the Disciplinary Authority had taken a lenient view. Placing reliance upon U.P.SRTC v. Vinod Kumar (2008) I SCC 115, K.S.R.T.C. v. B.S. Hullikatti AIR 2001 SC 930 : (2001) 2 SCC 574 ; (2001) 2 MLJ 7, Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C.v. H. Amresh AIR 2006 SC 2730 : (2006)-III-LLJ-232, the learned counsel has submitted that when the employee is found guilty of misappropriation of funds, the Courts should be reluctant to reduce the punishment on misplaced sympathy or generosity. The Disciplinary Authority had taken the totality of all facts and circumstances and since there was huge loss, the loss has to be made good and at the same time proper punishment has to be imposed upon the petitioner. Therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be said to be a double punishment. 18. Coming to the plea of bias, based on the earlier Charge Memo dated 20.6.1997, the then Managing Director has passed the order of punishment of removal of the petitioner, After de novo enquiry, the order of punishment of withholding of increments and recovery of lumpsum amount of Rs.1,70,752.12 was ordered from the salary of the petitioner and that order was passed on 3. 2005. When the Appeal was preferred against the said order of punishment, it is stated that the Appellate Authority/Executive Committee was headed by the Chairman, who was none other than the Ex-Managing Director of the Corporation, who earlier passed the order of removal from service, According to the Appellant, the order of Appellate Authority headed by the Chairman, who was the Ex-Managing Director of the Corporation (passed the order of removal of petitioner from service) is vitiated by bias and unsustainable. .19. It was further argued that the first respondent was also one of the members of the second respondent/Executive Committee in his capacity as the Managing Director. The Executive Committee consists of Managing Director of the Corporation, the Finance Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, who is the Chairman of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee consists of Managing Director of the Corporation, the Finance Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, who is the Chairman of the Executive Committee. The order passed by the Executive Committee is assailed on the ground that the first respondent/Managing Director was one of the members of the Executive Committee and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated by bias. 20. The plea of bias raised by the petitioner is not sustainable. The bias in a disciplinary proceedings must be a real possibility as to a reasonable mind and not merely an apprehension. The plea of bias must be raised at the earliest opportunity. The petitioner knowing fully well that the first respondent/Managing Director was one of the Members of the Executive Committee, had preferred an Appeal before the Executive Committee. Having suffered the order of confirmation of punishment, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the plea of bias. 21. In any event, bias alleged by the petitioner is not worth consideration. No one shall be Judge in his own cause only means that he should not have personal interest in the cause, he is to adjudicate. The first respondent/Managing Director was a member of the Executive Committee, in his official capacity. The first respondent/Managing Director was discharging his official capacity as the Member of the Executive Committee, there is no reasonable possibility or likelihood of bias. 22. The Report of the Enquiry Officer is based upon the Stock Register, Delivery Note and other evidence on record. The Disciplinary Authority taking into account the shortage of 7.103 M.Tonnes of 84 cms Reel paper and material loss to the Corporation, the Disciplinary Authority rightly imposed the punishment of recovery of loss of Rs.1,70,752.12 and stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. Upon consideration of evidence and materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings has conducted following the procedure contemplated under the Relevant Service Rules as well the principles of natural justice. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner also cannot be said to be disproportionate warranting interference. 23. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.