JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is filed by applicant of OA No.258/2002 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order dated 08th September 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench (herein after for brevity called "the Tribunal") in aforementioned Original Application. 2. By the impugned order dated 08th September 2003, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the writ petitioner and declined to grant him any relief claimed therein. 3. Few facts need mention to appreciate the issue which lie in a narrow compass. 4. The writ petitioner was at all relevant time working as Extra departmental Branch Post Master, Sanganer. He however remained absent during the period 12.1.1995 to 27.2.1998 i.e. for almost 180 days. It was also noticed that taking advantage of his post and power, he withdrew certain money from one S.B. Account No.820276 belonging to one account holder without his knowledge. It is due to these two misconducts which were found major in nature, the writ petitioner was served with charge-sheet as per Rules. The petitioner contested the charge. The matter was dealt with by the Inquiry Officer. He held both the charges as made out. It was held that petitioner had remained absent from duty un-authorisedly and without any sanction for 180 days. It was also held that he had misappropriated the money from the holder's account. The appointing authority concurred with the findings of inquiry Officer and dismissed the petitioner from service. It is against this dismissal order, the writ petitioner filed OA out of which this writ petition arises before the Tribunal. By impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the OA and in turn upheld the dismissal order giving rise to filing of the writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 5. So the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to grant relief prayed for by the petitioner while rejecting his Original Application. 6. This is how the Tribunal dealt with issue and decided against the writ petitioner. "9. As to the charge of absence from duty for more than 180 days from 12.1.95 to 27.2.98, it is not disputed that applicant had not attended duties during that period. 6. This is how the Tribunal dealt with issue and decided against the writ petitioner. "9. As to the charge of absence from duty for more than 180 days from 12.1.95 to 27.2.98, it is not disputed that applicant had not attended duties during that period. What is stated is that the applicant's mother was not well and therefore he had to proceed on leave from 12.1.95 but when he tried to join duty on 24.1.95, he was not permitted to join. It is stated that the applicant made attempts to join duty but he was not taken on duty. 9.1 As already stated, admittedly the applicant was not on duty from 12.1.95 to 27.2.98. It may be that because of pendency of another case relating to misappropriation, the applicant was restrained to join duty on 24.1.95, but there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had made attempts thereafter to join duty at any time. As a matter of fact, after he came to know that action was being taken against him for misappropriation of some amount, he avoided his presence in the office. The applicant has not placed on record any material, which could suggest that he made representation after 24.1.95 to take him on duty. 9.2 It is also not irrelevant to state that the applicant had proceeded on leave without sanction. It was the misconduct of the applicant when he proceeded on leave without sanction. Thereafter, he continued to remain absent for three years. 9.3 It is seen that in January 1995 some enquiry was being conducted against the applicant as there was some complaint against him that he had taken Indra Vikas Patra of the value of Rs. 25,000/-. A case has also been filed against the applicant in the District Consumer Forum Bhilwara by Smt. Sushila Devi for that amount and the matter is pending in the State Forum. In those circumstances, if the applicant was not allowed to join duty on 24.1.95, it cannot be said that the charge of remaining absent for more than 180 days was not proved against the applicant. The applicant does not say that he had tried to join duty any day after 24.01.1995. Rather evidence has been produced in the Inquiry that attempts were made to contact the applicant after 24.01.95, but he was not found. ................ .... .... .... The applicant does not say that he had tried to join duty any day after 24.01.1995. Rather evidence has been produced in the Inquiry that attempts were made to contact the applicant after 24.01.95, but he was not found. ................ .... .... .... 10.2 The facts which have emerged in the statement of two brothers clearly indicate that they have been won over by the applicant. When Kamal Kishore says that no amount was paid to him by the applicant, there was no occasion for him to make payment to Abdul Razzak on 14.11.1994. It also cannot be believed that Abdul Razzak, if he had got the amount on 14.11.1994, he would not inform his brother for the same for about three and half months. It may be that his brother lived at Sahada but it has been admitted by Abdul Razzak that his brother used to come to Sanganer once or twice in a month. The fact that Abdul Razzak did not tell his brother about the receipt of the amount for about three and half months goes to show that he had not received the amount and he has give false statement. 10.3 Shri Mohammed Farooq Ansari in his statement has stated that he had filed a complaint against the applicant on 2.2.95 and by that date he had not received the amount. He has also stated that his brother did not inform him as to who had paid the amount to him. 10.4 In our opinion, it cannot be said that the enquiry officer on the basis of the evidence produced before him had erred in concluding that the applicant had not paid the amount to Shri Kamal Kishore, the messenger, though he had withdrawn the amount on 14.11.1994. 10.5 Even on assuming that two views is possible on the evidence produced in the disciplinary proceedings, this court cannot be justified in interfering with the finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority since this Court is not an appellate court. It is not permissible to upset the findings on the ground of inadequacy or unreliability of evidence as has been upheld by the apex court in the cases cited above. 11. As to the quantum of penalty, it cannot be said to be harsh. It is not permissible to upset the findings on the ground of inadequacy or unreliability of evidence as has been upheld by the apex court in the cases cited above. 11. As to the quantum of penalty, it cannot be said to be harsh. The applicant not only neglected his duties by remaining absent for more than 180 days but also committed misappropriation of the amount by violating the provisions of saving bank account rules. This court cannot have sympathy towards such a person." 7. Since we are completely in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal while dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner, therefore, we need not to burden our order by repeating the facts and contentions of parties. 8. Here is a case where the employee was charge-sheeted as per Rules. He contested. Both parties adduced evidence in support of their stand. The inquiry officer then probed into the evidence and recorded a categorical finding that both the charges stood made out as alleged against the writ petitioner. It was upheld on further appreciation to the extent permissible by the Tribunal. 9. In a case of this nature, principal of natural justice are followed in letter and spirit in the inquiry proceedings. The writ petitioner fully availed of it by filing reply and adducing evidence. The Tribunal examined the issue keeping in view these parameters and held that they are fully met 10. In our opinion, looking to the gravity of charge, its seriousness and the fact that it stood proved, the punishment of dismissal was appropriate and just. In other words, no punishment other than that of dismissal could be awarded to the writ petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. He only urged on facts and wanted us to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties in inquiry proceedings. We are afraid. It is not possible to do it in our writ jurisdiction because we are not hearing the matter as an appellate court sitting over the decision of inquiry officer. Indeed, even the Tribunal could not do this and nor it did. 12. We are afraid. It is not possible to do it in our writ jurisdiction because we are not hearing the matter as an appellate court sitting over the decision of inquiry officer. Indeed, even the Tribunal could not do this and nor it did. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find absolutely no justification in departing from the view taken by the Tribunal as the order passed by the Tribunal is just, proper and legal calling for no interference. 13. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******