JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, J. — The petitioner in this writ application challenges the order dated 20.02.2009 passed by the Orissa Admin¬istrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.115 of 2009 under Annexure-14 in which the Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner to interfere with the punishments awarded in a disci¬plinary proceeding under Annexure-12, being minor in nature. 2. Annexure-12, the order dated 1.11.2008 passed by the State Government reveals that the petitioner has been awarded with the following punishments : 1. Censure. 2. To withhold one annual increment without cumulative effect. 3. To treat the period of suspension as leave due and admis¬sible. 3. The facts of the case as delineated in the writ appli¬cation tend to reveal that the petitioner while working as a Reader in Commerce in B.J.B. Autonomous College became the Head of the Department (H.O.D.) of Commerce and during such tenure of the petitioner as H.O.D., on 18.11.2005 one Reecha Mishra, a student of +3 Commerce of the said college committed suicide. In her suicidal note, she had put blame on two lecturers of the college, namely, Dr. Durga Prasanna Patnaik, Reader in Commerce, and Dr. Sahadev Swain Lecturer in Commerce, accusing them of indulging in private tuitions and harassing the students, who did not take their coaching. Basing on such allegation, the State Government directed the Director, Higher Education to inquire into the allegation made in the suicidal note. Accordingly, the Director of Higher Education conducted the inquiry and submitted his report to the State Government vide Annexure-3. Pursuant to such inquiry report, the State Government by order dated 4.1.2006 (Annexure-4) initiated a common disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and the two other lecturers, namely Dr. Durga Pra¬sanna Patnaik, Reader in Commerce, and Dr. Sahadev Swain, Lectur¬er in Commerce. Charge Nos.1 and 3 which relate to the petitioner are as follows :- Charge No.1 “That Dr. Ananga Kumar Mohapatra, Dr. Durga Prasad Patnaik and Dr. Sahadev Swain were well aware about the ban imposed by the Govt. on private tuition from time to time. But Dr. Durga Pr. Patnaik and Dr. Sahadev Swain indulged themselves in private tuition without prior approval of the appropriate authority. This fact has not been reported by Dr. Ananga Kr. Mohapatra, HOD Commerce. As such he has not performed his duties properly as HOD.” Thus, Dr. Ananga Kr. Mohapatra, Dr. Durga Pr. Patnaik and Dr. Sahadev Swain for violating Govt. Durga Pr. Patnaik and Dr. Sahadev Swain indulged themselves in private tuition without prior approval of the appropriate authority. This fact has not been reported by Dr. Ananga Kr. Mohapatra, HOD Commerce. As such he has not performed his duties properly as HOD.” Thus, Dr. Ananga Kr. Mohapatra, Dr. Durga Pr. Patnaik and Dr. Sahadev Swain for violating Govt. instruction No.21470/HE dated 25.4.97, No.32762/HE dated 21.6.97 and No.40425/HE, dated 8.8.03 and rule 3 & 4 of O.G.S.C. Rules, 1959 as they are jointly responsible.” Charge No.3 “That Dr. Ananga Kr. Mohapatra, HOD Commerce, Dr. Durga Pr. Patnaik, Reader in Commerce and Dr. Sahadev Swain, Lecturer (SS) in Commerce have not properly valuated the answer scripts of Reecha Mishra for which Reecha Mishra was placed in 2nd Division. After revaluation of answer scripts it reveals that she has secured 384 marks instead of 332. Hence due to deliberate under valuation of answer scripts Reecha Mishra committed suicide out of mental agony. Thus the above three O.E.S. officers have shown negligence and misconduct in their duties in violation of Rule 3 of O.G.S.C. Rules, 1959.” The Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries & Ex-Officio, Special Secretary to Govt. in G.A. Department, who conducted the inquiry in the Departmental Proceeding drawn up against the petitioner and others, submitted the inquiry report on 28.8.2007 vide Annexure-8. 4. So far as Charge No.1 is concerned, the finding of the Commissioner for Department Inquiries (in short ‘C.D.I’) is that since the petitioner was the H.O.D., he was well aware of the circular issued by the Government prohibiting private tuitions. The said circular indicates the role of the Principal along with the H.O.D. in collecting the information and supplying the same to the Govt. The spirit of the Circular is that the H.O.D. is to collect information from various sources to find out if any of his juniors are indulging in private tuition and to supply the same to the Principal. This does not mean that the H.O.D. will wait till someone files a complaint in this regard and then only he has to act. The information must be forthcoming, spontaneously and automatically. Thereafter the C.D.I. observed as follows :- “The Principal is not an individual but an institution who depends on others to discharge his duties in an effective manner. This does not mean that the H.O.D. will wait till someone files a complaint in this regard and then only he has to act. The information must be forthcoming, spontaneously and automatically. Thereafter the C.D.I. observed as follows :- “The Principal is not an individual but an institution who depends on others to discharge his duties in an effective manner. Here of course, the role of the Principal is not exemplary and his failure to curb the private tuition tells upon his efficiency and his leadership quality. The attitude of D.O. No.1 is clearly negative and non-cooperative. He should have kept close watch over the activities of his juniors and instead of waiting for the complaints to be filed before him, he should have taken steps to collect information confidentially from various sources. From the above discussion, it is clear that the charge of holding of private tuition by D.O. No.2 & 3 are established. But leaking of question papers before examination is not established. The lack of supervision by D.O. No.1 for his failure to report about the involvement of D.O. No.2 and 3 in private tuition is established”. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, there is nothing in the circular to show the manner in which the infor¬mation will come spontaneously and automatically and the method of collection of information. We also fail to understand how information regarding the junior colleagues indulging in private tuition will flow spontaneously and automatically and how the H.O.D. shall also collect the information and report it to the Principal and thereafter the Principal to the Government, in absence of any procedure formulated therefor. Rightly, as stated by Dr. Rath, there is no power or authority of the H.O.D. to control other faculty members and no procedure to get information regarding their indulging in private tuition. In our opinion, the finding of the C.D.I. to the effect that lack of supervision by the petitioner, i.e. D.O. No.1 to report about the involvement of D.O. Nos.2 and 3 in private tuition is established, is based upon no materials. 6. In our opinion, the finding of the C.D.I. to the effect that lack of supervision by the petitioner, i.e. D.O. No.1 to report about the involvement of D.O. Nos.2 and 3 in private tuition is established, is based upon no materials. 6. As to Charge No.3 that the petitioner and other two lecturers, D.O. Nos.2 and 3 had not properly evaluated the answer script of late Reecha Mishra, for which she was placed in 2nd Division and on revaluation of answer scripts, it was found that the marks awarded to her were increased from 332 to 384, the finding of the C.D.I. is as follows :- “......... From the above discussion, it is clear that the charge of deliberate under-valuation is not established against D.O. No.2 and 3. But the marks awarded by D.O. No.1 can be termed as erratic. So the charge is established against the D.O.1”. It is well known that the evaluation of answer scripts of the examinees is done on the basis of the subjective satisfaction of the examiners and, therefore, there is every likelihood of variation in the awarding of marks from examiner to examiner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further draws our attention to the inquiry report, in which the procedure for evaluation has been exhaus¬tively explained by indicating that the answers papers evaluated by the petitioner were in coded form and there was no chance of knowing the answer paper of any particular examinee. On perusal of the report of inquiry as well as the findings arrived at, we find that while on one hand the C.D.I. found that the charge of under valuation was not established against D.O. Nos.2 and 3, on the other hand, he found that the marks awarded by the petitioner (D.O. No.1) as erratic. Charge No.3 would show that the petition¬er and two other Lecturers had not properly evaluated the answer papers of Late Reecha Mishra and hence, due to deliberate under-valuation of answer papers, Reecha Mishra committed suicide. The charge of deliberate under-valuation has not been proved against the petitioner. It is not known basing upon which material the C.D.I. found that the charge was established against the petitioner as the awarding of marks can be termed as erratic, thereby Charge No.3 is proved. No Charge has been framed against the petitioner for alleged erratic marking. 7. The charge of deliberate under-valuation has not been proved against the petitioner. It is not known basing upon which material the C.D.I. found that the charge was established against the petitioner as the awarding of marks can be termed as erratic, thereby Charge No.3 is proved. No Charge has been framed against the petitioner for alleged erratic marking. 7. In paragraph-20 of the writ petition, it is contended by the petitioner that the answer sheets of Reecha Mishra were evaluated by seven lecturers of different colleges. The papers which were originally evaluated by two other lecturers were also revaluated and on such revaluation, there were considerable enhancement of marks. But for the reason best known to the au¬thorities, those two lecturers were not even charge-sheeted nor any proceeding was initiated against them nor any action was taken against them for erratic marking. 8. We are well aware of the position of law and the scope of interference by this Court with the punishment awarded in a Departmental Proceeding. In this regard, we may refer to a decision of the apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & others (1995) (6) SCC 749, wherein it was observed as follows :- “A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authori¬ty, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punish¬ment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to re-consider, the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” In Union of India and another v. G. Ganayutham, 1997 (7) SCC 463 , the apex Court held as thus. “The current position of proportionately in administrative law in England and India can be summarized as follows : (1) To judge the validity of any administrative order or statutory discretion, normally the Wednesbury test is to be applied to find out if the decision was illegal or suffered from procedural improperties or was one which no sensible decision maker could, on the material before him and within the framework of the law, have arrived at. The Court would consider whether relevant matters had not been taken into account or whether irrelevant matters had been taken into account or whether the action was not bona fide. The Court would also consider whether the decision was absurd or perverse. The Court would not, howev¬er, go into the correctness of the choice made by the administra¬tor amongst the various alternatives open to him. Nor could the Court substitute its decision to that of the administrator. This is the Wednesbury (1948 1 KB 223) test.” xxx xxx xxx Finally, we come to the present case. It is not contended before us that any fundamental freedom is affected. We need not, therefore, go into the question of “proportionately”. There is no contention that the punishment imposed is illegal or vitiated by procedural impropriety. As to “irrationality” there is no finding by the Tribunal that the decision is one which no sensible person who weighed the pros and cons could have arrived at nor is there a finding, based on material, that the punishment is in “outra¬geous” defiance of logic. Neither Wednesbury nor CCSU tests are satisfied. We have still to explain “Ranjit Thakur (1987) (4) SCC 611).” In the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another v. Munna Lal Jain, AIR 2005 (1) S.C. 584, the apex Court observed as hereunder :- “Court should not interfere with the administrator’s deci¬sion unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropri¬ety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury’s case 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. The scope of judicial review is limit¬ed to the deficiency in decision-making process and not decision. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury’s case 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. The scope of judicial review is limit¬ed to the deficiency in decision-making process and not decision. To put differently unless the punishment imposed by the Discipli¬nary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference.” 9. Here in the case at hand, if we take the report of the C.D.I. in its entirety, without adding or substracting anything to it vis-a-vis the charges framed, we find that the C.D.I. has arrived at a finding not related to Charge Nos.1 and 3 framed against the petitioner. The decision of the Inquiring Authority is totally perverse, absurd and in defiance of logic. The C.D.I. has arrived at a finding which no sensible decision maker would arrived at. The C.D.I. has not considered the relevant materials and swayed away by irrelevant considerations and has tried to impose a finding for which charges were not framed and was not required to inquire. The findings recorded by the C.D.I. like "the marks awarded by D.O. No.1 can be termed as erratic"/"lack of supervision by the D.O. No.1" are not the charges, the C.D.I. was directed to inquire. The findings arrived at by the C.D.I. are beyond the scope of reference and beyond the scope of charges framed and therefore, it is a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner is to be allowed. 10. In view of the above, we set aside the order dated 20.2.2009 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.115 of 2009 under Annexure-14, the order imposing punishment dated 1.11.2008 passed by O.P.1 under Annexure-12 and the order dated 14.8.2008 passed by the Special Secretary, Orissa Public Service Commission under Annexure-13, so far as it relates to the petitioner. The period of suspension of the petitioner be treated as on duty. The writ application is accordingly allowed. No costs. B.K. NAYAK, J. I agree. Application allowed.