JUDGMENT : - SYAMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI, J. This appeal is directed against order dated 11th November, 2005 passed in writ petition No. 3683 (w) of 2002 by a Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court. 2. This said writ petition was filed challenging the legality and propriety of minor penalty of censure imposed on the appellant by the Disciplinary Authority on account of his failure to report two transactions concerning movable property owned or held by him in his own name or in the name of a member of his family in violation of relevant service rule 3 of C.D.A. Rules. 3. The background of the disciplinary proceedings drawn up against the appellant is that there was a search on 20-02-86 at the residence of the appellant on a Quarter No.12/38D, 10C Township, Post:- Haldia Township. It was alleged amongst other that while working as Electrical Engineer during 1982-86, the appellant failed to give intimation to the management regarding the financial transaction as required under Rule 22 (23) of the Conduct Discipline and appeal Rules 1980 of the Corporation in respect of the following incidents as enumerated in the charge-sheet Annexure – P/3 dated 01-02-1988. The same are quoted below:- “INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (Refineries & Pipelines Division) Haldia Refinery No. P/IRDE/7245 Dated: 01-02-1988 Sri Swapan Haldar Sr. Electrical Engineer Emp. No. 71458 P & U Department CHARGE SHEET It is alleged that you , while working as Electrical Engineer during 1982 – 86, failed to give intimation to the Management regarding financial transactions, as required under Rule 22(3) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 of the Corporation, in respect of the following instances: 1) A plot of land at S- 164 Greater Kailash, New Delhi, of the value of Rs. 8,000/- was gifted to you and your brothers by your great grandfather. 2) You took a loan of Rs.5, 000/- from Shri. A. C. Jana, under secretary in the National Institute of Public Co-operation and Child Development, New Delhi for construction of a house thereon. 3) You gave a Power of Attorney for construction of your father to deal and act on your behalf for construction of the house on the said plot NO. S-164, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. You also authorised your father to construct the house on the said plot and operate the account on your behalf on which more than Rs. 8 lakhs were spent. S-164, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. You also authorised your father to construct the house on the said plot and operate the account on your behalf on which more than Rs. 8 lakhs were spent. 4) You alogn your brother, applied for a loan of Rs. 2.5 lakhs from the LIC and a sum of Rs. 1.90 lakhs was paid by the LIC as follows: Rs. 1 lakh on 28.03.85 by cheque no. 171385 Rs. 50,000/- on 4.7.85 by cheque No. 171730 Rs. 25,000/- on 30.4.85 by cheque no. 171490 Rs. 15,000/- on 30.6.85 This amount was used for the construction of the house. 5) The construction of the hosue was started in 1982 and completed in 1986. An advance of Rs. 1.44 lakhs was taken from M/s. Cummins Diesels Sales and Service (I) Ltd. from 1985 to 1986 vide various receipts signed by your father on your behalf and by your brother. 6) Repayment of loan of Rs. 36,252.70 to the LIC was made by you and your brothers as follows: i) Receipt No. 28223 dated 29.06.85 ii) Receipt No. 28355 dated 8.7.85 iii) Receipt No. 188 dated 28.12.85 7) A sum of Rs. 1.44 lakhs was paid to Sri. Shanker Lal, Contractor in 1985 by your brother for the construction of house on S-164, G-Kailash is as under:- 1) Vide receipt dated 15.5.83 Rs. 73,000/- 2) Vide receipt dated 23.9.83 Rs. 48,000/- 3) Vide receipt dated nil Rs. 23,000/- But you intimated the management that it was still a plot. 8) The house was under construction in 1983-84 and 1984-85 also. Lakhs of rupees were spent on its construction. You did not intimate the management about this as required under the rules. In view of the above, you have committed misconduct by failing to maintain devotion to duty and committed acts unbecoming of a public servant, and thereby contravened rule 22(3) of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 of the Corporation. A copy of the list of documents by which and lit of witnesses by whom charges are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed. You are hereby directed to submit your explanation in writing to the charges of misconduct stated above by 02-02-88. In case of your failing to submit the explanation to offer and further disciplinary action will follow. The receipt of this charge-sheet may be acknowledged on the subjoined form. You are hereby directed to submit your explanation in writing to the charges of misconduct stated above by 02-02-88. In case of your failing to submit the explanation to offer and further disciplinary action will follow. The receipt of this charge-sheet may be acknowledged on the subjoined form. Sd/- (S. N. Sarkar) 1.2.88 Chief General Manager” 4. After due enquiry the Disciplinary Authority from that article of Charge No. 2 to 8 were proved and the rest charges were not proved. 5. The Disciplinary Authority then imposed minor punishment of censure by order dated 4th September, 2000 against which the Delinquent Officer preferred an appeal on 12-09-2000 but the appellate authority affirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Authority by its order dated 12th July, 2001 being aggrieved by dissatisfied with such order the petitioner preferred the W.P. No.3683 (W) of 2002 praying for setting aside and/or recalling charge-sheet, order 5 of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority and to promote the petitioner to the post of Grade – ‘F’ that means the Chief Manager with effect from 2000-01 and to release his service benefits including pay and allowance due and payable to the petitioner for the period from 1988 – 2001. 6. While considering the writ petition this Hon’ble Court by order dated 11th November, 2005 has dismissed the writ petition with the following observation which runs as follows:- “all that I can say is that it has now been fairly well-settled that the High Court does not interfere with the punishment inflicted by the Domestic Authority unless the consents of the Court is shocked. It is only in those cases that the High Court can interfere. In the present case, only punishment inflicted upon the writ petitioner is censure and, therefore, the standard laid down for High Court’s interfering is not met in the present case.” 7. The said order of dismissal have now been assailed with the dual objects of quashing the charge-sheet in respect of the charges proved by the Disciplinary Authority with the recall of the order of punishment and secondly to promote the appellant and grant service benefits with retrospective effects on which the Learned Trial Court did not make any findings and thus, in fact, refuse to grant such relief. 8 In the Court below the writ petitioner/appellant called in question serious infirmities in the Disciplinary Proceedings on account of the failure of the employer to initiate the proceedings by independent action. They have initiated on the recommendation of the C.B.I. and, therefore, the initiation of the proceedings is the outcome of non-application of mind and as such not sustainable in law. Secondly, the good number of documents were called for by the Delinquent Officer but not supplied by the employer. Thirdly, the Presenting Officers were the Officer of the C.B.I. at whose instance the disciplinary proceedings was drawn up and as such the enquiry was perfunctory and biased. 9. So far as, the first point is concerned it is submitted by learned lawyer by the appellant that the Disciplinary Proceedings issued the charge-sheet without complying with Rule 31 (2) of the Disciplinary Rule 1980 which requires that the Disciplinary Proceedings must form an opinion that there were grounds for enquiry into the truth of any misconduct or misbehaviour against an employee. Learned lawyer for the respondent has submitted that C.B.I. proposed initiations of major penalty proceeding under Rule 31. Though the language of the charge-sheet is similar to that in the background forwarded by the C.B.I, this is not evidence that the respondent No. 1 acted had its dictates. Therefore, the decision reported in (1955) 5 SCC has no application. 10. So far as, the appellant of presenting officer is concerned it is submitted by the respondent that no prejudice was caused to the appellant and there was no violation of the principle of natural justice. The scope of judicial review of the findings of domestic tribunal is very limited to see whether the enquiry was held in accordance with the principle of natural of justice, whether there was material in support of the charges and whether the employer acted in good faith. Therefore, the said argument is not tenable. 11. The third argument is that the document required by the appellant by his letter dated 21-03-2000 were not supplied to the appellant and thus, there has been violation of Rule 31(8), (9) and (10) of the C.D.A. Rules of 1980. The learned lawyer for the appellant, therefore, submits that in view of the principles laid down in (the case of Union of India & Ors. The learned lawyer for the appellant, therefore, submits that in view of the principles laid down in (the case of Union of India & Ors. –V- S. K. Kapoor) reported in 2011(4) SCC 589 it appears that the respondent was charge-sheeted – for absence without leave. The order of dismissal was passed against him without supplying report of U.P.S.C. in the above context the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if any material is to be relied upon in departmental proceeding copy thereof must be supplied in advance to charge-sheeted employee so that he may have chance to rebut that material. The fact of the present case is otherwise. 12. In his letter dated 21-03-2000 he has asked for supply of the following document: “1. Documents mentioned at serial no. 1 to 8 and my property returns as mentioned at serial no.9 of the list of documents annexed to the charge sheet dated 1.2.88. 2. Statement of witnesses mentioned at serial no. 1 to 13 of the list of witnesses annexed with the charge sheet along with their bills, receipts. 3. Receipts no. 28223 dated 29.6.85, 28355 dated 8.7.85 and No. 188 dated 28.12.85 regarding payments of loan of Rs. 26,252.70 to LIC as mentioned in para 6 of the charge sheet. 4. Receipts sated 15.5.83 for Rs. 73,000/-, dated 23.9.83 for Rs. 84,000/-and dated Nil for Rs. 23,000/- to Shri Sankar Lal as mentioned in para 7 of the charge sheet. 5. Salary certificate dated 7.4.82 which the IOC granted to me on my request that I intent to construct a house jointly with my brothers at S164, G.K.II, New Delhi by raisign loan from LIC and other loans and my father will be my attorney. 6. Employers certificate dated 19th April, 1982 in the format prescribed by LIC giving therein my service particulars and retirement benefit. 7. Letter no. P11/F-17/71458 dated 16.1.85 from IOC through LIC of India in which my application for raising house building loan jointly with my two brothers for construction of house at S-164, G.K. II, New Delhi was sponsored by IOC. 8. Letter no. Mortgages/M-1/P-4822/4170 dated 1.1.85 of the LIC of India addressed to the Personal Officer, IOC. 9. Letters No. H&P FM-1/P-4822/4170 dated 1.1.85 of the LIC of India addressed to the Personal Officer, IOC. 10. 8. Letter no. Mortgages/M-1/P-4822/4170 dated 1.1.85 of the LIC of India addressed to the Personal Officer, IOC. 9. Letters No. H&P FM-1/P-4822/4170 dated 1.1.85 of the LIC of India addressed to the Personal Officer, IOC. 10. Letter No. PH/F-1/71458 dated 15.1.85 of Shri S.K. Ganguli, Personal Officer, I.O.C. addressed to L.I.C. of India in reply to their letters dated 1.1.85. 11. Letter No. HPF DepH/15-3291 dated 31.1.89 addressed to the Indian Oil Corporation, Haldia with reference to their letter no. PH/F-1/71458. 12. Copy of C.D.A. Rules application then. 13. Property return submitted as on a.a. My first joining a.b. Submitted for the year 1983 giving status as on 1st January, 1983. a.c. Letter confirming status as on 1st January, 1985. a.d. Submitted for the year 1986 giving status as on 1st January, 1986. 14. Vide Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 rule 31(6)1 request you to allow Shri Prasant Rout Empl. No. 77302, Designation SMISO, of MIS Department as my Co-officer. 15. C.V.C. report of Shri S. Subramaniyam, Technical Examiner CVC dted 22.4.87.” 15. In the said letter the appellant has stated in Para 2 that the charges alleged against him which on the basis of the documents and witnesses listed in R.C. 14/86 against his father Sri M. M. Halder. It is an admitted fact that his case was not investigated through C.B.I. and there was no search warrant against him and the Officer who conducted illegal search at his residence at 12/38D. 16. Such a contention is contradictory, because on the one hand, he is claiming that C.B.I. has not conducted any investigation against him but on the other hand, he is claiming that his employer initiated the proceeding against him without any application of mind merely on the basis of report of C.B.I. 17. It is on record that the said action of the employer for non-supply of document has not been challenged by the appellant who continued to participate in the Disciplinary Proceeding till the end. Therefore, after conclusion of trial he cannot challenge inaction of his employer which will be treated as abandoned. From the materials on record it appears that the appellant was supplied which sufficient materials to answer the charge under Items Nos.5 & 8. Therefore, it cannot be held that due to non-supply of the document he is prejudiced. 18. Therefore, after conclusion of trial he cannot challenge inaction of his employer which will be treated as abandoned. From the materials on record it appears that the appellant was supplied which sufficient materials to answer the charge under Items Nos.5 & 8. Therefore, it cannot be held that due to non-supply of the document he is prejudiced. 18. Learned lawyer for the respondent has drawn our attention to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1669 (State Bank of Patiala & Ors. appellant –V- S. K. Sharma, respondent). In the said case, Hon’ble Apex Court has evolved certain basic principles of natural justice keeping in view the context of the Disciplinary Enquiry and order of punishment imposed by an employer upon the employee which are quoted below:- “Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellant raises certain basic questions concerning natural justice in the context of disciplinary proceedings. 3. A disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent in respect of two charges. They are : “Charge No. I ‘That he did not deposit the sum of Rs. 10,000/-handed over to him by Sh. Balwant Singh in December 1985, in the crop loan account of Sh. Jarnail Singh s/o Sh. Lahra Singh. Later on the entire amount of Rs. 11,517.50 outstanding in the account was deposited by someone on the 22nd March 1986, under the signature of Sh. Balwant Singh. He thus utilised the amount of Rs. 10,000/-for approximately 3 months for his own advantage.” Charge N0. II ‘That he, in contravention of Regulation 50 (4) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers’) Service Regulations 1979, issued an undated letter in his own handwriting addressed to the Tehsildar, Bhatinda for revocation of Mutation on the land mortgaged to the Bank even when the crop loan account of Shri Jarnail Singh was not adjusted. He thus jeopardised the interests of the Bank.’ 4. At the relevant time, the respondent was working as the Manager of Kot Fatta branch of the appellant-Bank. The charge against the respondent, in short, is one of temporary misappropriation. One Jarnail Singh had taken a loan of Rupees ten thousand from the Bank. He thus jeopardised the interests of the Bank.’ 4. At the relevant time, the respondent was working as the Manager of Kot Fatta branch of the appellant-Bank. The charge against the respondent, in short, is one of temporary misappropriation. One Jarnail Singh had taken a loan of Rupees ten thousand from the Bank. After Jarnail Singh’s death, his son, Balwant Singhy, came and handed over a sum of Rupees ten thousand to the respondent in December, 1985 in discharge of the said loan. In February, 1986, the respondent was transferred to another branch. In March, Balwant Singh went to the Bank and discovered that the amount paid by him to the respondent was not credited to his/his father’s account. Soon thereafter, a sum of Rs. 11,517.50 p was deposited in the Bank in the name of Bank in the name of Balwant Singh. The appellant-Bank’s case is that having received the amount from Balwant Singh in December, 1985, the respondent did not credit the said amount into the Bank account until March, 1986, though he issued a letter addressed to Tehsildar, Bhatinda in December, 1985, itself to the effect that since the crop loan amount has been adjusted, the entry regarding mortgage of land of Jarnail Singh in favour of the Bank be revoked. 5. Before ordering a regular oral enquiry, the Bank had directed Shri K. J. Wadhan and Shri P.N. Garg to conduct a preliminary enquiry. The said officers examined witnesses including Balwant Singh and the Patwari of the village, Shri Kaur Singh, and also gathered necessary documentary evidence. it is on the basis of the material so gathered and the preliminary report they submitted that the regular oral enquiry was ordered. In the enquiry, six witnesses (P.Ws. 1 to 6) were examined on behalf of the Bank and three witnesses (D. Ws. 1 to 3) on behalf of the respondent. The Bank Sri K.J. Wadhan and she P.N. Garg who had conducted the preliminary inquiry and recorded the statements of Balwant Singh among others. The Patwari, Kaur Singh, was examined as P.W. 5. The other three witnesses, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 are the employees of the Bank who spoke to the various aspects of the Bank’s case. The Bank Sri K.J. Wadhan and she P.N. Garg who had conducted the preliminary inquiry and recorded the statements of Balwant Singh among others. The Patwari, Kaur Singh, was examined as P.W. 5. The other three witnesses, P.Ws. 3, 4 and 6 are the employees of the Bank who spoke to the various aspects of the Bank’s case. Balwant Singh who was the complainant did not appear as a witness at the regular enquiry in spite of several attempts made to procure his presence, though his statement had been recorded during the preliminary enquiry. 6. At the conclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted by the enquiry officer holding both the charges established. The competent authority accepted the report and ordered the removal of the respondent from the service. An appeal and a review submitted by the respondent were dismissed. The respondent thereupon instituted a suit in the Court of learned Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Bhatinda for a declaration that the order of removal is void and illegal and for a declaration that he continues to be in service with all consequential benefits. The Trial Courts rejected all the grounds urged by the respondent in support of his case except one, viz., that “the list of witnesses and list of documents were not supplied with charge-sheet and then the same were not supplied by presenting officer during the course of enquiry.” On the only ground that “this argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff was not meted out by the learned Counsel for the defendants in his written arguments”, the Trial Court held the allegation established. It found that the said failure to supply is violative of Regulation 68(x) (b) (iii) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers;) Service Regulations, 1979, and on that basis, decreed the suit. On appeal, the judgment and the decree of the Trial Court were affirmed. The Appellate Court found those following facts; during the course of enquiry, the presenting officer filed a provisional list of documents/witnesses (p-2) on June 2, 1987. The list contained nine documents including the statements of Kaur Singh, Patwari, and Balwant Singh, complaint. The said documents were marked as P-3 to P-11. Though a copy of the list of document/statements was supplied to the respondent-plaintiff, copies of the documents P-3 to p-11 were not supplied to him. The list contained nine documents including the statements of Kaur Singh, Patwari, and Balwant Singh, complaint. The said documents were marked as P-3 to P-11. Though a copy of the list of document/statements was supplied to the respondent-plaintiff, copies of the documents P-3 to p-11 were not supplied to him. He was, however, advised to peruse, examine and take notices of the said documents/statements. This opportunity was given only half an hour before the commencement of the enquiry proceedings. The Appellate Court found that in the above circumstances, there was clear violation of Regulation 68, which has prejudicially affected the respondent’s defence. The second appeal filed by the Bank was dismissed by a learned single judge of the High Court affirming the said finding. The learned judge in fact assigned one more ground in support of the respondent’s case, viz., that inasmuch as Balwant Singh was not examined, it is a case of ‘no evidence’. Before entering upon the discussion of issues arising herein, it is well to reiterate the well-accepted proposition that the scope of judicial review in these matters is the same whether it is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or a suit filed in the Civil Court. 7. To clear the ground for considering the main question arising herein. We may first dispose of the additional ground assigned by the High Court. Because Balwant Singh, the complaint, was not examined, it cannot be said to be a case of evidence. As stated above, as many as six witnesses were examined including two officers of the Bank who conducted the preliminary enquiry and had recorded the statements of witnesses including Balwant Singh. They spoke to the preliminary enquiry conducted by them and the statement of Balwant Singh recorded by them. Other Bank officials were examined to establish that the letter Exh. P-6 addressed to the Tehsildar, Bhatinda was in fact written by and bears the signature of the respondent. Kaur Singh, Patwari, was also examined. It is on the basis of this evidence that the enquiry officer had come to the conclusion that both the charges were established in spite of non-examination of Balwant Singh. Neither the trial Court nor the first Appellate Court have found that it is a case of no evidence. The additional ground assigned by the High Court is, therefore, unsustainable in law.” 19. Neither the trial Court nor the first Appellate Court have found that it is a case of no evidence. The additional ground assigned by the High Court is, therefore, unsustainable in law.” 19. Keeping the above principles in view I have examined the findings of the Disciplinary as well as the Appellate Authority including Rule 22 (3) of the C.D.A. Rule 1980 as subsequently amended under the said rules. There is an obligation of every employee to report the competent authority every transaction concerning immovable property owned or held by him in his own name or in the name of all member of his family, if the value of such property exceeds the limit prescribed. 20. In his property return from as on 1st January, 1986 the appellant has shown that he has constructed a flat in the ground floor in Delhi Grater Kailash Part – II though the land owned jointly by himself and two his brothers in the relevant remarks Column No.8 he has stated “construction done by loan drawn jointly by self and two brothers”. There is no denial that he has not made that contention. It is claimed that he took advance rent from the tenant and spent it for the purpose of construction which cannot be treated as income at source and as such he had no obligation to a state in delay under Column No.8. This suppression of material fact obviously amount to misconduct for which the disciplinary authority imposed minor penalty which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. 21. In our opinion, there is no illegality or infirmity in such findings which require interference by way of judicial review in view of the aforesaid principal of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 22. The cases relied on and reported in (1991) 3 SCC 219 and (1995) 5 SCC 302 by the appellant are not applicable in this case and which are distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned lawyer for the appellant has drawn our attention to the true meaning of the words “acting under dictation” clarified in DE SMITH’S Judicial Review, SIXTH EDITION at page 315. Learned lawyer for the appellant has drawn our attention to the true meaning of the words “acting under dictation” clarified in DE SMITH’S Judicial Review, SIXTH EDITION at page 315. It is clarified therein that the authority directly entrusted with statutory discretion, be they Executive Officer or Members of District Tribunal, which usually entitled and are often obliged to take into account consideration of public policy, and in some context the policy of a Minister or of the Government as well may be a relevant factor in weighing those considerations but this will not absolved them from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases, unless explicit statutory provision has been made for them to be given pointing instruction by a superior or (possibly) unless cumulative effect of the subject-matter and their hierarchical subordination (in the case of Civil Services and a local Government Officer’s) make it clear that it is constitutionally proper for them to receive and obey instruction conveyed in the proper manner and form. 23. The said observation has little significance in considering the initiation of disciplinary proceeding by the employer on account of suppression of income as well as expenditure for the purpose of constructing of house in the return. It is too simple to be exaggerated. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and hold that there is no scope for Judicial Review of the minor penalty imposed upon the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any cost. 24. The urgent Photostat copy if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.