JUDGMENT : B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.11.2007 by which the writ petition has been dismissed and the order of dismissal from service of the Appellant passed by the Respondents - authorities has been upheld. 2. The Appellant while serving as Area Manager of the Orissa State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Bhubaneswar ( in short, the "Federation") was put under suspension vide order dated 20.12.1988. An order was passed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and the charge sheet was served upon him. The charges as contained against him had been (i) misappropriation of stock (ii) suppression of facts, and (iii) breach of trust. As the Appellant had mis-utilised the subsidy amount and suppressed material facts which caused financial loss to the Federation to the extent of Rs. 95,830.75, an inquiry was conducted in accordance with law and after observing the principles of natural justice. The Appellant had full opportunity of meeting the charges and to adduce evidence and also of by examining and cross-examining the witnesses during inquiry. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges. Appellant was served the copy of inquiry report by the disciplinary authority and an opportunity to submit his comments against the same. The Appellant filed his objection/representation against the inquiry report and the same was considered. Thereafter the order of dismissal from service had been passed. 3. Being aggrieved the matter was agitated before the Orissa State Co-operative Tribunal ( in short, the "Tribunal"). The Tribunal refused to interfere with the order of termination of service recording the reason that inquiry had been completed in accordance with law, the Appellant had caused financial loss to the Federation, apart from committing misappropriation. The Appellant was also guilty of negligence in supervising activities and such failure on his part resulted huge loss to the Federation. Being aggrieved, the Appellant challenged the said order by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dealing with each and every issue agitated before the Court dismissed the writ petition by a reasoned and speaking order. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has reiterated the points raised by him before the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved, the Appellant challenged the said order by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dealing with each and every issue agitated before the Court dismissed the writ petition by a reasoned and speaking order. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has reiterated the points raised by him before the learned Single Judge. It has been canvassed before us that the Appellant had denied the charges: adduced evidence in support of his pleas but the same have been brushed aside without proper appreciation. There had been an error of billing which had been adjusted and reconciled but this fact has not been considered in correct prospective. The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating the evidence led by the Appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. On the contrary, learned Counsel for the Respondents have opposed the appeal contending that evidence cannot be appreciated in exercise of powers of judicial review and thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The Court can review to correct errors of law or fundamental procedural requirements, which may lead to manifest injustice and can interfere with the impugned order in "exceptional circumstances". (Vide Union of India (UOI) Vs. Parma Nanda, ; State Bank of India and Others Vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow and Another, ; Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 Vs. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy, ; State of Punjab and others Vs. Surjit Singh Conductor, ; State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and anothers, ; State of U.P. and others Vs. Nand Kishore Shukla and another, ; Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bhola Nath Singh and other, ; State of Punjab and others Vs. Bakhshish Singh, ; Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, ; Union of India and Others Vs. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan and Another, ; Food Corporation of India v. A. Prahalada Rao and Anr. AIR 2001 SC 51 ; Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 24 ; N.R. Nair and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, ; Union of India and Another Vs. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and Another, ; Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and Others, ; S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. AIR 2001 SC 51 ; Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 24 ; N.R. Nair and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, ; Union of India and Another Vs. Ashutosh Kumar Srivastava and Another, ; Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and Others, ; S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Others, ; and Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, ). 8. In State of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. S. Subramaniam the Apex Court held that as the High Court has power of judicial review of the administrative action on complaint relating to service conditions of the employee, it is within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the charge stood proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules of evidence have no application in the disciplinary proceedings and the authority is to consider the material on record. In judicial review, the Court "has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion, which the authority reaches, is necessarily correct in the view of the Court or the Tribunal. When the conclusion reaches by the authority is based on evidence, the -Court or the Tribunal is devoid of power to re-appreciate the evidence and would come to its own conclusion on the proved charges. The only consideration the Court/Tribunal has, in its judicial review, is to consider whether the conclusion is based on the evidence on record that support the finding, or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence." 9. In General Court Martial and Others Vs. Col. Aniltej Singh Dhaliwal the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court, in its limited power of exercise of judicial review, may interfere by appreciating the evidence only if there is an omission on the part of the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, to consider the relevant evidence. 10. Similarly, in Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Col. Aniltej Singh Dhaliwal the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court, in its limited power of exercise of judicial review, may interfere by appreciating the evidence only if there is an omission on the part of the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, to consider the relevant evidence. 10. Similarly, in Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour) and Others, the Court observed as under: It is equally well settled that where a quasi-judicial Tribunal or arbitrator records findings based on no legal evidence and the findings are either his ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated Viewed from either angle, the conclusion' of the Inquiry Officer are wholly perverse and hence unsustainable. The High Court, in our opinion, was clearly in error in declining to examine the contention that the findings were perverse on the short, specious and wholly untenable ground that the matter depends on appraisal of evidence. Between appraisal of evidence and total lack of evidence, there is an appreciable difference which could never be lost sight of and the High Court ought not to have short-circuited the writ petition. 11. In R.S. Saini Vs. State of Punjab and Others the Apex Court noted as follows: We will have to bear in mind the rule that the court while exercising writ jurisdiction will not reverse a finding of the inquiring authority on the ground that the evidence adduced before it is insufficient. If there is some evidence to reasonably support the conclusion of the inquiring authority, it is not the function of the court to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding. The inquiring authority is the sole judge of the fact so' long as there is some legal evidence to substantiate the finding and the adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the court in writ proceedings. Where the Court comes to the conclusion that certain orders have been passed illegally and in arbitrary manner, the Court can exercise the power of judicial review. Sham Lal (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Atme Nand Jain Sabha (Regd.), Dal Bazar, ; Chairman and M.D., B.P.L. Ltd. Vs. S.P. Gururaja and Others, ; and Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. and Another Vs. Where the Court comes to the conclusion that certain orders have been passed illegally and in arbitrary manner, the Court can exercise the power of judicial review. Sham Lal (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Atme Nand Jain Sabha (Regd.), Dal Bazar, ; Chairman and M.D., B.P.L. Ltd. Vs. S.P. Gururaja and Others, ; and Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. and Another Vs. C.K. Rajan and Others, ). 12. We also do not find any force in the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that punishment of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate to the delinquency for the reason that in a case of misappropriation, the only punishment of dismissal can be imposed. 13. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishan Behari and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases involving corruption - there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. 14. Similar view has been reiterated in Ruston and Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam AIR 1975 SC 2025 ; U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary, (1997) 11 SCC 370 ; Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Whole Sale Stores Limited) Etc. Vs. The Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha Etc., ; Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. B.S. Hullikatti, ; and Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam v. Sharma, (2002) 1 LLJ 234 SC . 15. In Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. Vs. H. Amaresh the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal. 16. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar, . 17. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 18. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed