Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 378 (GAU)

Pulin Behari De v. Food Corporation of India

2009-06-02

C.R.SARMA, T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT T.NK. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas and Mr. S. Lodh, learned Counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.2.2006, wherein and whereunder the learned Single Judge rejected the W.P.(C) No. 394 of 2003 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order of the disciplinary authority dated 5.9.2003 imposing penalty of (1) reduction of rank to the next lower post in the lower time scale of pay at its initial stage for a period of 3 years and (2) recovery of Rs. 50,000/- in 50 equal monthly installments and also the order of the appellate authority dated 25.8.2004 rejecting the appeal by confirming the finding of the disciplinary authority in its order dated 5.9.2003 but by reducing the penalty imposed on the appellant/writ petitioner to extend of waiving the penalty of recovery of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand). 3. For deciding the present writ appeal, a short factual panorama of the appellant/writ petitioner's case leading to the filing of W.P. (C) No. 394 of 2003 is recapitulated. The appellant/writ petitioner joined the service of the respondent corporation in the year 1976 as A.G. Gr. III and was promoted to A.G. Gr. II(D) and he was posted as Depot in-charge in F.S.D. new Badharghat in 1994-99. He was found in the periodical responsible for shortage in stock detected stock taking exercise; and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by issuing a memorandum being No. V. & S. 21(42)/2001/12, dated 2.3.2002 for the charges, mentioned therein. The appellant/writ petitioner was furnished with the said memorandum, article of charges, statement of imputation of misconduct and also the list of documents by which article of charges framed against the appellant/writ petitioner were proposed to be sustained. For better appreciation of the appellant/writ petitioner's case, the relevant portion of the statement of article of charges framed against him and also the statement of imputation of misconduct are quoted hereunder: STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI PULIN BEHARI DE, A.G. II(D) FORMER DEPOT INCHARGE FSD, FCI, NEW BADARGHAT UNDER D.O. AGARTALA. Shri Pulin Behari De, AG. For better appreciation of the appellant/writ petitioner's case, the relevant portion of the statement of article of charges framed against him and also the statement of imputation of misconduct are quoted hereunder: STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SHRI PULIN BEHARI DE, A.G. II(D) FORMER DEPOT INCHARGE FSD, FCI, NEW BADARGHAT UNDER D.O. AGARTALA. Shri Pulin Behari De, AG. 11 (D) while functioning as Depot Incharge, FSD, FCI, New Badarghat under District Office, Agartala during the period from 1994 to 15.9.1999, committed gross misconduct and dereliction of duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Corporation inasmuch as it was found: (1) that Sri Pulin Behari De, Depot Incharge and custodian of the stock failed to endeavour his utmost to prevent pilferage of stock to reduce the storage lossas District Investigating Committee after verification of stock ledger from 7.9.1999 to 10.9.1999, surfaced storage loss of 818.25.400 Qtls. of Grade A Rice, for which he was directly responsible as said Depot was under his direct control. He had also not taken timely quality control measure to liquidate the Rice stored in Stack No. 13, 14, 01, 14, 05, 09, 10, 06, 12 and 16 and allowed prolonged storage to deteriorate the stock. Thus he displayed dishonesty, disintegrity and negligency in keeping full control over the Depot operations and caused the aforesaid loss to F.C.I. (2) that Sri Pulin Behari De, Depot Incharge had deliberately not conducted P.V. of Rice stock quarterly as on 30.6.1999 and annually as on 31.3.1999 (except in Stack No. 9) both by count as well as by weighment and thereby concealed the shortage which was malpracticed. He was also responsible for not reflecting the true and factual position in the periodical stock statement. (3) that due to his negligency in performing his duty as Depot Incharge and custodian of the stock, F.C.I. suffered the monetary loss of Rs. 6,25,964.31P on account of aforesaid storage loss. That the above acts of omission and commission, on the part of Sri Pulin Behari De, AG. (3) that due to his negligency in performing his duty as Depot Incharge and custodian of the stock, F.C.I. suffered the monetary loss of Rs. 6,25,964.31P on account of aforesaid storage loss. That the above acts of omission and commission, on the part of Sri Pulin Behari De, AG. II (D), the said Depot Incharge, FSD, New Badarghat under District Officer, Agartala constituted gross misconduct for his failure to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Corporation inasmuch as he contributed to the aforesaid storage loss and thereby violated the provision of the Regulation 31(a)(b), 32, 32A(1)(9)(30) of FCI (Staff) Regulations 1971. Sd/- (P.C. Ram) Sr. Regional Manager STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR IN SUPPORT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SRI PULIN BEHARI DE, AG. II(D) FORMER DEPOT IN-CHARGE FSD, FCI, NEW BADARGHAT UNDER DISTRICT OFFICE, AGARTALA. 1.1 That Sri Pulin Behari De, AG. II(D) was posted as Depot Incharge FSD, FCI, New Badarghat under District Office, Agartala vide order No. Estt. 3(1)/93-94/1942, dated 13.12.1993 and said Sri P.B. De was shifted from FSD, New Badarghat and posted at District Office, F.C.I., Agartala vide order No. Estt. 33(1)/99/1432, dated 15.9.1999. 1.2 That during his incumbency from 1994 to 15.9.1999 as Depot Incharge, New Badarghat, the then District Manager Agartala, instituted an Investigation Committee vide Order No. S&S/NBGT/Part-II/95-96/1344, dated 2.9.1999 to ascertain the actual storage loss occurred in the stock held in the aforesaid Depot. 1.3 That the members, who constituted the said Committee, reached FSD, New Badarghat on 7.9.1999 and found the entire stock had been liquidated except damaged Rice in Stack No. 1/Ally. The Team members then verified the Stack Ledger and other records to ascertain the actual storage loss occurred after killing of respective stack of rice and found the following storage losses as per Statement "A" the particulars of which are given below: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. L/F Stack Variety Total Qnty. Received Peri Star P No. No. No. of Rice od of age er Star loss c age in en Qtls. ta ge --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bags Qnty. in Qtis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 81 13 Gr. A 1574.05 12.2.96 312. 19.8 (Raw) to 1.9.99 31 4% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 74 14 " (Bld) 1729.59 25.1.99 53.12 03.0 1906 = to 7% 30.8.99 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. 47 01 " (Raw) 326.80 2.7.99 to 03.30 01. 370 = 24.8.99 0% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. ta ge --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bags Qnty. in Qtis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 81 13 Gr. A 1574.05 12.2.96 312. 19.8 (Raw) to 1.9.99 31 4% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 74 14 " (Bld) 1729.59 25.1.99 53.12 03.0 1906 = to 7% 30.8.99 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. 47 01 " (Raw) 326.80 2.7.99 to 03.30 01. 370 = 24.8.99 0% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. 48 14 " (Raw) 1184.95 25.6.99 26.25 02.2 1320 = to 3.8.99 1% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. 42 05 " (Raw) 894.58 20.3.99 11.00 01.2 1869 = .600 to .400 3% 26.8.99 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. 71 09 " (Bld) 1489.60 1.3.96 to 44.23 02.9 1640 = 26.8.99 7 % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. 76 10 " (Bld) 833.96 25.10.97 66.50 07.9 908 = to 7 % --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. 82 06 " (Raw) 1233.00 11.3.96 to 270. 21.9 1416 = 1.9.99 63 4% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. 49 12 " (Raw) 733.85 2.7.99 to 10.85 01.4 825 = 30.8.99 7% --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. 77 16 " (Bld) 132.26 20.10.97 20.06 15.1 142 = to 6% 21.8.99 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 12177 = 818.25. 10132. 400 164.600 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. The appellant/writ petitioner denied the charges framed against him. In the course of disciplinary proceeding against him for the said charges, 5 (five) PWs were examined. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.4.2003 with the findings that the charges levelled against the appellant/writ petitioner were not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the said report of the Inquiry Officer and issued show cause notice dated 26.6.2003 by giving the reasons/grounds for disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer to the appellant/writ petitioner as to why the disciplinary authority should not pass orders as deem fit against him and directed him to submit his representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice. The reasons/grounds for disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer by the disciplinary authority are mentioned in para No. 6 of the show cause notice dated 26.6.2003, which read as follows: THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE : NEP REGION : SHILLONG-3. No. V&S-21(42)/2001/79 SHOW CAUSE NOTICE 6. The undersigned disagrees with the report of the Inquiry Officer on the following grounds: (1) The huge storage losses was detected only during the process of dehiring of the Godown, New Badarghat Depot to Arundhutinagar Depot. As Depot-in-Charge, the custodian of the stock he should have brought to the notice of the District Manager in time. The undersigned disagrees with the report of the Inquiry Officer on the following grounds: (1) The huge storage losses was detected only during the process of dehiring of the Godown, New Badarghat Depot to Arundhutinagar Depot. As Depot-in-Charge, the custodian of the stock he should have brought to the notice of the District Manager in time. The actual huge storage loss of 818.25.400 Qtl. was detected by the District Committee members only which was occurred during the tenure of Sri Pulin Behari De, the Depot In-charge of New Badarghat Depot. (2) The period of storage of the stack of Rice Grade-A in the said depot is ranging from 1 year to 3 years and some stacks the period of storage varied from 1 month to 7 months only. The detailed position stack-wise, showing quantity of loss, period of storage and percentage of loss are shown as under: SHORT PERIOD OF STORAGE LESS TNAN 1 YEAR --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Stack Com Quan Period of storage % of Value No. No. modity turn of loss Loss ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 1 R-G.A 3.30 2.7.99 to 1 1.00% Rs. Kg. 24.8.99 month 2524.50P 22 days ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 5 " 11.00 20.3.99 5 1.23% Rs. .400 to months 8418.06P gms. 26.8.99 6 days ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. 12 " 10.85 2.7.99 to 1 1.47 % Rs. .000 30.8.99 month 83.00.25P gms. 28 days ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. 14 R (Bld) 53.12 25.1.99 7 3.07% Rs. /Gr.A .000 to months 40636.8 gms. 30.8.99 5 days OP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. 14 26.25 25.6.99 1 2.21% Rs. .000 to 3.8.99 month 20081.2 gms. 9 days SP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 104.52.400 gms. Rs. 79.960.86P PERIOD OF STORAGE FOR 1 YEAR AND ABOVE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Stack Com Quan Period of storage % of Value No. No. modity turn of loss ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 9 R (Bld) 44.23 1.3.96 3 years 2.97% Rs. Gr. A .000 to 5 years 33835 gms. 26.8. .95P 99 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. 10 " 66.50 25.10 1 year 2.97% Rs. .700 .90 to 10 50872 gms. 28.8. mont .50P 99 hs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. 16 " 20.06 20.10 1 year Rs. .000 .97 to 10 15345 gms. 26.8. mont .90P 99 hs 15. 16% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. 13 " 12.2 3 years 19.8 Rs. 312.3 96 to 6 4% 2389 1.000 1.9.99 mont 17.15P hs 14 days ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. 6 " 270.6 11.3. 3 years 21.9 Rs. 3.000 96 to 5 4% 2070 gms. 16 " 20.06 20.10 1 year Rs. .000 .97 to 10 15345 gms. 26.8. mont .90P 99 hs 15. 16% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. 13 " 12.2 3 years 19.8 Rs. 312.3 96 to 6 4% 2389 1.000 1.9.99 mont 17.15P hs 14 days ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. 6 " 270.6 11.3. 3 years 21.9 Rs. 3.000 96 to 5 4% 2070 gms. 1.9.99 month 31.95P 20 days ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 713.73.000 gms. Rs. 5.46.003.45P 104.52.400 gms. Rs. 79.960.86P ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GRAND TOTAL 818.25.400 gms. Rs. 76,25,964.31P ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It reveals from the mentioned statement that even during short period of shortage huge storage loss occurred which proved that the charged official has misappropriated the stocks for his pecuniary gain/benefit. 3. The Quarterly P.V. as on 30.6.1999 and annual P.V. as on 31.3.1999 of the said Depot have not been conducted both by counting as well as by weighment and thereby concealed the shortages which was a malpractice by the charged official. 4. Due to the negligency of the charged official in performing his duties as a custodian of the stocks, the F.C.I. suffered financial loss of Rs. 6,25,964.31 P. 5. The Enquiry Officer who has not properly examined the case and submitted his analytical report. He has simply taken plea/sided the charged official. Shri Pulin Behari De that the Depot was not having weighbridge facility within the godown premises and no sufficient escort/security was provided enroute for which the District Manager has written to the Officer Incharge Police Station, West Agartala vide letter No. A(Vig) 1(3)/76-89/Security/Part. III/574, dated 27.7.98 as a matter of precaution. Sd/- (ISWARI PRASAD) SR. REGIONAL MANAGER. 5. The appellant/writ petitioner in response to the show cause notice submitted his reply. The disciplinary authority after taking into consideration of the statement of the said five PWs examined in the course of disciplinary proceeding, the documents produced by the parties in the disciplinary proceeding and the inquiry report had passed an order dated 5.9.2003 by giving reasons for imposing the penalty stated above to the appellant/writ petitioner. The appellant/writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority dated 5.9.2003 preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority after considering the case of the appellant/writ petitioner had passed the order dated 25.8.2004 dismissing the appeal. 6. The appellant/writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority dated 5.9.2003 preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority after considering the case of the appellant/writ petitioner had passed the order dated 25.8.2004 dismissing the appeal. 6. The appellant/writ petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 394 of 2003 for assailing the order of the disciplinary authority dated 5.9.2003 and also the order of the appellate authority dated 25.8.2004 on the inter alia grounds that (1) the findings and the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority are bad in law and those need to the quashed; (2) the appellate authority without application of mind and consideration of the evidence on record affirmed the decision of the disciplinary authority though the punishment is reduced; (3) both the authorities, i.e. the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority acted most in-judiciously, unreasonably, illegally, unfairly and without application of mind and (4) the disciplinary authority, though has the jurisdiction to impose the penalty, had imposed the penalty by issuing the impugned order basing on the findings which is contrary to the evidence produced. 7. The respondents filed the affidavit-in-opposition denying the assertion/the case of the appellant/writ petitioner. In their affidavit the respondents had categorically stated that the disciplinary authority has the jurisdiction and authority to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer; also that the findings of the Inquiry Officer is only the opinion of the Inquiry Officer which is to be looked into by the disciplinary authority for taking its own decision; that the disciplinary authority after appreciating the statement of the PWs. and the material documents produced by the parties had disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the show cause notice was served to the appellant/writ petitioner by giving reasons for disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, that the findings of the disciplinary authority is based on evidence and also that this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not acting as an appellate authority against the findings and the orders of the disciplinary authority and also that the jurisdiction of this Court is circumscribed that this Court cannot take its own decision by re-appreciating the evidence after interfering with the findings of the disciplinary authority against the appellant/writ petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding for the charges mentioned above. 8. 8. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition (W.P. (C) No. 394 of 2003) by passing the impugned judgment and order dated 2.2.2006 with the findings that the findings of the disciplinary authority are not based on surmises and conjectures and on the materials on record, the conclusions made by the disciplinary authority are not such that no reasonable person could have arrived at and also that in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority only on the ground of inadequacy of the evidence. 9. We have given anxious consideration of our mind to the findings of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority against the appellant/writ petitioner for imposing the penalty on the appellant/writ petitioner and also the impugned orders dated 5.9.2003 and 25.8.2004 as well as the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 10. The jurisdiction of the High Court for judicial review of the findings of the disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority in the writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India had been discussed and decided by the Apex Court in a plethora of cases, some of those will be considered in the appropriate portion of this judgment and order. It is very well settled law that the approach and the objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. The doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has no application in the disciplinary enquiry; preponderance probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Lalit Popli v. Carrara Bank and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 583 . The para No. 16 of the SCC in Lalit Popli (supra) reads as follows: 16. It is fairly well settled that the approach and objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. The para No. 16 of the SCC in Lalit Popli (supra) reads as follows: 16. It is fairly well settled that the approach and objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him, whereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established what sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. (See State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, (1996) 6 SCC 417 : (1996) SCC (L&S) 1455. In case of disciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" has no application Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. 11. From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Lalit Popli (supra), it is clear that the standard of proof in the disciplinary proceeding is not required to the extent "proof beyond doubt" and the technical rules of evidence is not applicable in the disciplinary proceeding. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are enough to arrive at the conclusion that the delinquent has committed the misconduct. The Apex Court in Lalit Popli (supra) further held that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice; review is not akin to adjudication of the case on the merits as an appellate authority. 12. The Apex Court in Ram Saran v. I.G. of Police CRPF and Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 541 held that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision making process and not the conclusion. The Courts should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the' sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. The Courts should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the' sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. The Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. In the present case, it is not the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that there is deficiency in decision making process but the case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are not based on materials or evidence and, as such, we have to see by exercising our limited jurisdiction of judicial review within the parameters permitted by the law as to whether the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are based on materials. For exercising the jurisdiction of our judicial review we may conveniently refer to some of the decisions of the Apex Court in the following paragraphs. 13. The Apex Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625 held that the High Court appears to have overlooked the settled position that in department proceedings, the disciplinary authority is the sole Judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact finding authorities. Once findings of facts, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speaking substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Since, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speaking substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is considered, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the Disciplinary or the Departmental appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears, ignored the well- settled principle that even though judicial review of administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the Court in exercise of the power of judicial review is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial Review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process. Lord Haltom in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982) 2 AII ER 141 , observed: The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide for itself, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. 14. The Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749 held that the disciplinary authority, on appeal the appellate authority, being fact findings authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute their own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty and that where the findings of the disciplinary authority/appellate authority are based on some evidence, the Court and the Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings. 15. The Apex Court again in The High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Sashikant S. Patil and Anr., AIR 2000 SC 22 held in para Nos. 19 and 21 as follows: 19. The reasoning of the High Court that when the Disciplinary Committee differed from the finding of the Inquiry Officer it is imperative to discuss the materials in detail and contest the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer, is quite unsound and contrary to the established principles in administrative law. The Disciplinary Committee was neither an appellate nor a revisional body over the Inquiry Officer's report. It must be borne in mind that the inquiry is primarily intended to afford the delinquent officer a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made against him and also to afford the punishing authority with the materials collected in some inquiry as well as the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer thereon. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are only his opinion on the materials, but such findings are not binding on the disciplinary authority as the decision making authority is the punishing authority and, therefore, that authority can come to its own conclusion, of course bearing in mind the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer. But it is not necessary that the disciplinary authority should "discuss materials in detail and contest the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer". Otherwise the position of the disciplinary authority would get relegated to a subordinate level. 21. Thus the Division Bench of the High Court has not approached the question from the correct angle which is evident when the Bench said that it is imperative for the Disciplinary Committee to discuss materials in detail and contest conclusions of the Inquiry Officer. The interference so made by the Division Bench with a well considered order passed by the High Court on the administrative side was by overstepping its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. The Apex Court in Principal Secretary, Govt. The interference so made by the Division Bench with a well considered order passed by the High Court on the administrative side was by overstepping its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. The Apex Court in Principal Secretary, Govt. of A.P. and Anr. v. M. Adinarayana, (2004) 12 SCC 579 held in para Nos. 24, 25 and 26 as follows: 24. The order of the Administrative Tribunal interfering with the well-considered order of TDP is unwarranted. APAT cannot sit as a Court of appeal over a decision based on the finding of the enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. Where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material reasonably supported the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it is not the function of the APAT to review the same and reach a different conclusion. So, it is well settled that if the findings recorded by the tribunals or of the disciplinary authorities, are found to be perverse, which are not based on the legal evidence, then the Administrative Tribunal or the Court is empowered to treat such flaw as a legal flaw and quash the impugned action. In the instant case, the fact finding authority has based its findings on legally permissible subs tantive evidence. And, therefore, such a finding on fact based on substantive evidence is not permissible to be interfered with. 25. In our opinion, the Administrative Tribunal cannot ignore the findings of the disciplinary authority or the tribunals. The truth or otherwise of the charge is a matter for the disciplinary authority to go into. The finding of the Court or tribunal under judicial review which, in our opinion, cannot extend to the re-examination of all evidence to decide the correctness of the charge. In our view, the Administrative Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of appeal over a decision based on finding of the enquiry authority in disciplinary proceedings. This Court, time and again, categorically stated that Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment where there is some relevant material which the disciplinary authority has accepted and which material has reasonable support, the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary Tribunal. It is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach a different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. 26. It is not the function of the Administrative Tribunal to review the same and reach a different finding than that of the disciplinary authority. 26. In our opinion, judicial review cannot extend to the examination of the correctness of the charges as it is not an appeal but only a review of the manner in which the decision was made. We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court for -reasons stated (supra). The order passed by the Government removing the respondent from service is in order and, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant State stands allowed. Further, there will be no order as to costs. 17. On perusal of the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority in the present case, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and also the circumscribed jurisdiction of this Court for judicial review of the findings of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority, in the impugned order dated 5.9.2003 and 25.8.2004, we are of the firm view that the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are based on materials and evidence and also the findings of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in the orders dated 5.9.2003 and 25.8.2004 respectively cannot be interfered with only on the sole ground that there is inefficiency of evidence as we are constrained to see only as to whether those findings are based on no materials or not. Very ground canvassed for interfering with in the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority by the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that there is insufficiency of material or evidence for coming to the finding that the charge for huge storage loss against the appellant/writ petitioner had been proved holds little water and not sustainable in the eye of law. 18. For the reasons discussed above, it is clear that the appellant/writ petitioner has utterly failed to make out materials to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.2.2006 dismissing the W.P. (C) No. 394 of 2003. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed