JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in respect of the disciplinary proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner which culminated into imposition of major penalty of removal from service. The basic facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as follows. The petitioner while was serving as Assistant (Purchase) in the respondent Corporation was placed under suspension by order dated 01.08.2003 pending drawl of the departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the charge sheet was issued on 07.08.2003 levelling the charge of defrauding a huge sum of money during the period from 1994-1995 to 2003-2004. It was also alleged that he had tempered with the documents (invoices & challans) where discounts were mentioned and altered the figures so that the incentive/rebates would not be known to others. It was further alleged that the petitioner by forging various purchase requisition procured materials from M/s. Indian Oil Corporation which was not originally indented against the incentive/rebate given by the Indian Oil Corporation and sold the materials to other parties for his personal gains and causing huge financial loss to the Corporation and wrongful gain for himself. 2. With the aforesaid allegations, referring to the provision of the certified standards orders of the Corporation, it was observed in the charge sheet that the petitioner was liable for disciplinary action and he was directed to submit his show cause reply in respect of the charge sheet. 3. On receipt of the charge sheet, the petitioner by his Annexure-5 written statement of defence dated 18.08.2008 denied the allegations. In the meantime, another charge sheet dated 01.04.2009 was served on the petitioner levelling the following charges: CHARGESHEET It has been reported against Shri P.K. Das, RI. No. 002 that while he was serving as Assistant in Purchase Department of Nagaon Paper Mill he did not deliver the Lubricants (SMG20W40) at Stores which were collected from IOCL, Guwahati through five Nos. of Invoices duly received and signed by him as shown below: As a result the Corporation have suffered a loss of 16 barrels of Lubricants (SMG20W40) amounting to Rs. 1,47,312.00. The aforesaid alleged acts of Shri Das, if proved, would constitute acts of misconduct in terms of Section 28(6), 28(15) & 28(51) of Certified Standing Orders applicable to Shri Das which read as under and would render him liable to disciplinary action. 1,47,312.00. The aforesaid alleged acts of Shri Das, if proved, would constitute acts of misconduct in terms of Section 28(6), 28(15) & 28(51) of Certified Standing Orders applicable to Shri Das which read as under and would render him liable to disciplinary action. Clause 28 (6): .................dishonesty, deception or corrupt practice in connection with the Company's business or property or work or misappropriation of the Company's funds..........or otherwise. Clause 28(15): ...................indulging in any other corrupt practice. Clause 28(25): .. wilful ... or loss of Company's goods or other property. Clause 28(51): Deliberately giving false information prejudicial to the interest or reputation of the Company. In view of the above, Shri Das is hereby advised to submit his written explanation which 10 (ten) days of receipt of this letter as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his aforesaid alleged acts of misconduct in case we do not receive from Shri Das within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that Shri Das has nothing to explain in this regard and in that event necessary disciplinary action as per provisions of the Certified Standing orders of the Corporation will be initiated. 4. Responding to the aforesaid charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 19.04.2004 denying the allegations with the plea that the challans and products were handed over to him by the IOC officials and in turn he sued to hand over the challans to the Truck drivers. He took a further plea that when the Trucks with the materials arrived at the gate of the Corporation Office at Jagiroad at around 6/7 p.m. at Jagiraod, the CISF personnel did not allow the Trucks to enter into the office complex and thus the Trucks remained outside the office gate throughout the night till next morning. On the other hand, the drivers had left for their quarters. Thus the plea taken was that there might be theft of materials/goods from the Trucks at night for which he was not responsible. 5. In due course, departmental enquiries were conducted against the petitioner in respect of both the charge sheets. In reference to the second charge sheet, the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry officer on 26.06.2004 alongwith his witnesses and co-workman in case the petitioner was desirous of taking their assistance in the enquiry. 5. In due course, departmental enquiries were conducted against the petitioner in respect of both the charge sheets. In reference to the second charge sheet, the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry officer on 26.06.2004 alongwith his witnesses and co-workman in case the petitioner was desirous of taking their assistance in the enquiry. The enquiry was held on different dates and thereafter written briefs had been submitted by both the parties, i.e. the petitioner and the disciplinary authority. 6. On conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner was served with a copy of the enquiry report advising him to submit his written comments on the same. A copy of the enquiry dated 24.11.2004 had been annexed to the report as Annexure-XI. By the said enquiry report, the charge against the petitioner was held to have been established. The petitioner by his Annexure-XII representation dated 15.12.2004 responded to the enquiry report stating that the enquiry officer failed to appreciate the evidence in holding that the charge against the petitioner was established. Thereafter the disciplinary authority passed the impugned Annexure-XII order dated 04.02.2005 removing him from the service stipulating that such removal would not be a disqualification for further employment. Alongwith the order the petitioner was paid one month salary amounting to Rs. 9826/-. 7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of removal from service, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal (Annexure-XIV) which was also rejected by Annexure-XV order dated 01.04.2005. Thereafter he filed the writ petition. 8. By an additional affidavit the petitioner has brought on record the judgement dated 29.05.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Morigaon in Money Suit No. 29/2005 by which the suit that was instituted by the respondent Corporation against the petitioner for recovery of the amount defrauded by the petitioner, has been dismissed. The suit was filed by the Corporation against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of Rs. 26,14,376.68 alongwith future interest on the said amount. According to the petitioner, the suit having been dismissed establishing that the petitioner is no way responsible for misappropriation of the said amount relatable to the charge in respect of which he has been removed from service, the impugned order of removal followed by the appellate order referred to above, are liable to be set aside and quashed. 9. The respondent Corporation has filed its affidavit in opposition denying the contentions raised in the writ petition. 9. The respondent Corporation has filed its affidavit in opposition denying the contentions raised in the writ petition. It has been stated in the said affidavit that the departmental enquiry having been conducted as per the established procedure and the petitioner having been provided with all reasonable opportunities of being heard, there is no question of any interference with the impugned orders. The respondents have also produced the departmental proceeding file. During the course of hearing, Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel representing the Corporation submitted that even in respect of the first charge sheet referred to above, enquiry was concluded holding that the petitioner guilty of the charges, but before any penalty could be imposed in respect of the said charge sheet, the petitioner was removed from service on the basis of the enquiry conducted in respect of the second charge sheet. 10. I have heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel representing the respondent Corporation. I have also perused the entire materials on record including the departmental proceeding file. 11. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the decisions of the Apex Court reported in (1983) 2 SCC 442 (Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.) and (2010) 2 SCC 772 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Saroj Kumar Sinha), submitted that the petitioner having not been provided with the copies of the documents on the basis of which the charge was levelled against him, was deprived of proper defence. He also submitted that the disciplinary authority ought to have apprised the petitioner of his right of defence assistance in the enquiry and the same having not been done, the petitioner was handicapped in appropriately defending his case in the enquiry. According to him, the petitioner being not in any way responsible for the loss of the materials and there being no proof of misappropriation of any amount by the petitioner, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with. 12. Countering the above argument, Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, submitted that the enquiry having been conducted in a fair and transparent manner in full participation of the petitioner, there is no question of interference of the impugned orders. 12. Countering the above argument, Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, submitted that the enquiry having been conducted in a fair and transparent manner in full participation of the petitioner, there is no question of interference of the impugned orders. Referring to the departmental proceeding file, he submitted that it is too late on the day to allege the denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard inasmuch as the petitioner was given excess to the documents and also the opportunity to engage his defence assistant. He has also placed reliance on the two decisions of the Apex Court reported in (1) (2008) 8 SCC 92 (State Bank of India Vs. S.N. Goyal) and (2) (2006) 2 SCC 255 (T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. K. Meerabai). 13. As noted above, the enquiry in respect of the first charge sheet dated 07.08.2003 has also been concluded in which also the charge has been established against the petitioner. However, before any penalty could be imposed on that basis, the second enquiry stood concluded against the petitioner followed by imposition of the penalty of removal from service by the impugned order. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has also produced the departmental proceeding file in respect of the first charge sheet on perusal of which it appears that as per the report submitted by the enquiry officer, it was found that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood established. However, before any action could be taken on the basis of the said report, the service of the petitioner came to be terminated by the impugned order of removal pursuant to the enquiry that was conducted in respect of the second charge sheet. 15. Be that has it may and without being guided by the said fact of establishing the charge against the petitioner levelled by the first charge sheet, I have considered the pleas raised by the petitioner towards assailing the impugned orders pertaining to the second charge sheet. On perusal of the enquiry proceeding file relating to the same, it is found that the enquiry was conducted on different dates in which the petitioner duly participated. During the course of regular hearing on 13.09.2004, the petitioner was asked by the enquiry officer as to whether he would like to produce any witnesses or documents to which his reply was in the negative. During the course of regular hearing on 13.09.2004, the petitioner was asked by the enquiry officer as to whether he would like to produce any witnesses or documents to which his reply was in the negative. Preliminary enquiry was conducted on 26.06.2004 and the petitioner was asked as to whether he would accept the charge or not to which his reply was in the negative. On the next date of hearing, i.e. on 21.07.2004, the petitioner was specifically asked as to whether he would have any defence assistant to which also his reply was in the negative. As regards the documents, the petitioner was asked as to whether there was any supporting documents which were given access to him and upon examination of the same by the petitioner, the enquiry officer recorded in his proceeding about the same. Be it stated here that the petitioner duly signed the day to day proceeding recorded in the order sheets as a token of acceptance of the same. 16. From the above, the plea raised by the petitioner that he was not given access to the documents and was also not provided with the opportunity to engage his defence assistant, does not have any leg to stand. To that extent, there is suppression of material fact in the writ petition in stating that the petitioner was not provided with documents and opportunity to engage defence assistant. 17. The petitioner being receiver of the materials (Lubricants), it was his duty to deposit the same to the HPC stores. The plea that the truck had to remain outside the Corporation's gate throughout the night as the entry was denied and that in absence of Driver in the trucks there might be theft of the materials, is hardly acceptable. The petitioner cannot absolve himself from the responsibility of handing over the same to the stores. 18. Referring to the evidence on record, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had good faith in handing the authority to the Drivers to avoid any police harassment on the way to the Corporation's premises at Jagiroad and the petitioner used to get down before the trucks had reached the Corporation's premises and resultantly the petitioner was not aware as to what followed thereafter, is not at all acceptable. Being the receiver of the costly materials, it was the duty of the petitioner to ensure that the same had reached the Corporation's godown instead of getting down midway to go home. During the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that the distance between the petitioner's residence at Jagiroad and the office premises of the respondent Corporation is hardly kilometer. Thus, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to go to the office premises of the Corporation ensuring safe arrival of the costly materials, he being the recipient of the same. 19. In one of the questions put to him during enquiry, the reply of the petitioner was that the Management had not given him any instruction to check the items properly and that his duty was to see as to whether the materials had reached outside the CISF gate and thereafter it was not his responsibility to ensure reaching of the materials in the godown of the Corporation. To the specific question as to whether the petitioner had verified/cross checked the challans and the materials, reply of the petitioner was in the negative. 20. As against the aforesaid defence of the petitioner, all the MWs examined on behalf of the Management of the Corporation unequivocally stated that it was the responsibility of the receiver of the Lubricant, i.e. the petitioner, to deposit the same to HPC stores, but the petitioner did not do so. He only collected the challans from the Driver on the next morning. He did not even enquire as to whether the materials had reached the HPC stores. 21. Taking note of the evidence on record and upon scrutiny of the same in minute details, the enquiry officer held the charge levelled against the petitioner as established with the following assessments: "ASSESSMENT: Shri P.K. Das (C.O.) was the custodian of Lubricant Procurement File. He had been dealing the procurement of lubricants since April, 1994 as evident from M.D. 43, 44 and 45. Indent of materials (lubricants) received from Stores Deptt. in Purchase Deptt. went to Shri P.K. Das (C.O.) who telephoned IOC, Guwahati to determine the availability of the lubricants. Shri P.K. Das (CO) prepared IOM to Finance for payment of the amount as calculated on the basis of rate card and referred at M.d. 61 which was singed by Shri D.N. Mahapatra, Sr. in Purchase Deptt. went to Shri P.K. Das (C.O.) who telephoned IOC, Guwahati to determine the availability of the lubricants. Shri P.K. Das (CO) prepared IOM to Finance for payment of the amount as calculated on the basis of rate card and referred at M.d. 61 which was singed by Shri D.N. Mahapatra, Sr. M. (Pur) as referred at M.Ds. 53, 55 & 58. While preparing this memo. Shir P.K. Das (CO) used to add up excess amount than what was actually required as may be referred at M.D. 60. This excess amount matched with the price of 03 Nos. barrels of lubricant SMG20W40 or more, which has been agreed by Shri P.K. Das (CO) during enquiry held on 13.09.2004. Shri P. K. Das (CO) received the cheque from Finance Deptt. and prepared D.O. which was singed by Shri Naren Saikia, Executive (Purchase). When Shri Saikia was not available, other Executive singed the D.O. Five D.Os. were prepared by Shri P.K. Das (CO) on dates as mentioned in the Charge Sheet, i.e. during April 03 to June 03 as referred in M.Ds. 19, 46, 47, 48 & 49. Shir P.K. Das (C.O.) alongwith cheque and D.O. then went to IOC Guwahati with HPC's truck No. ASN 5499 or hired truck Nos. AS 21/4257 & AS 01M/9283 as per record of IOC, Guwahati Security Register entries as may be referred in M.Ds. 6, 15, 23, 34 & 41 to bring the lubricants, Shri P.K. Das (CO) used to get post facto approval of his tour programmes as may be referred in M.Ds. 1, 10, 17, 25 and 36. Shri P.K. Das (CO) deposited the cheque and D.O. in IOC Guwahati and received the lubricants as recorded in IOC Guwahati's Challans/Invoices under his own signature, as agreed by Shri P.K. DAs (CO) and as may be referred in M.Ds. 3, 12, 20, 26 & 38. Shri P.K. Das (CO) on return from IOC, Guwahati to Jagiroad used to instruct the driver to go to Beltola (lakhora) or ASEB Gate and unloaded there 03 or 04 Nos. barrel of the lubricant or ASEB Gate and unloaded there 03 or 04 Nos. barrel of the lubricant SMG20W40 at 4.00 p.m. On enquiry by the driver concerned Shri Babu Kanta Deka, Sr. barrel of the lubricant or ASEB Gate and unloaded there 03 or 04 Nos. barrel of the lubricant SMG20W40 at 4.00 p.m. On enquiry by the driver concerned Shri Babu Kanta Deka, Sr. Driver (M.W. 4) as to why the said lubricant was being unloaded at Beltola (Lakhora) Shri P.K. Das (CO) had replied that the said lubricant belonged to the IOC dealers. This reply of Shri P.K. Das (CO) is however ruled out since Shri P.K. Das (CO) had not brought any record or evidence during the enquiry which could prove that the lubricants belonged to IOC dealers. The lubricants belonging to HPC, NPM, brought from IOC, Guwahati against challan Nos. mentioned at para one above, were recorded in IOC, Guwahati's Security Register. Shri P.K. Das (CO) had stated on 13.09.2004 that the item SMG20W40 was normally available from M/s Castrol and order was also placed over M/s. Castrol. While going to IOC, Guwahati he (Shri Das) on the way at Ganeshguri Guwahati got down and enquired whether they were having SMG20W40 ................. This statement was overfuled by P.O. stating that as per Rate Contract dated 06.11.2002, valid up 05.11.2003, with M/s. Castrol there was no order placed for supply of item SMG20W40. Reference order copy No. B/10/20101692/LRF/20201319 dated 06.11.2002 can be referred in M.D. 62. Shri P.K. Das (CO) had admitted that it was his mistake in his reply on 13.09.2004. Shri P.K. Das (CO) after unloading the lubricant SMG20W40 at Beltola (Lakhora) or ASEB Gate, used to get down at Jagiroad and handed over the challans to the driver concerned in respect of the materials in the tuck. Shri Babu Kanta Deka, Sr. Driver (M.W 4) had stated on 11.08.2004 that he (M.W 4) had tailed the challans received from Shri P.K. Das (CO) with materials in the truck at the time of getting down of Shri P.K. Das (CO) at Jagiroad at 6.30 p.m. or 7.00 p.m. and next day M.W 4 did not find shortage of challans or materials and no theft case ever. Shri P.K. Das (CO) in his statement on 29.07.2004 had stated that his duty was to see whether materials reached outside the CISF gate. On 05.08.2004 Shri P.K. Das (CO) stated that truck with loaded materials remained outside CISF gate during late hours of evening and materials like bearing etc. had been stolen. Shri P.K. Das (CO) in his statement on 29.07.2004 had stated that his duty was to see whether materials reached outside the CISF gate. On 05.08.2004 Shri P.K. Das (CO) stated that truck with loaded materials remained outside CISF gate during late hours of evening and materials like bearing etc. had been stolen. The superior officers of Shri P.K. Das (CO) namely Shri S.N. Chakraborty, AM (Stores) (M.W 3), Shri Naren Saikia, Executive (purchase) (MW 5) and Shri D.N. Mahapatra, Sr. M. (Pur) (MW 7) have stated on 05.08.04, 26.08.04 and 30.08.04 respectively that Shri P.K. (CO) had responsibility of depositing lubricants including SMG20W40 received from IOC, Guwahati in NPM Stores. As regards parking of the truck, Shri Babu Kanta (MW 4) stated on 11.08.04 that when the materials could not be deposited in the Stores the same day, he parked the truck at 6.30 p.m. or 7.00 p.m., sometimes in front of main Gate and sometimes inside the Materials Gate near CISF duty office after obtaining permission from CISF personnel. There was no case of theft or FIR in respect of items SMG20W40 during the period April 03 to June 03, as stated by Shri P.K. Das (CO) himself and Shri S.N. Chakravorty, AM (Stores) (MW 3) on 05.08.04 and Shri D.N. Hahapatra (MW 7) on 30.08.04. The fact remained that 03 or 04 nos. barrels of the item SMG20W40 was unloaded at Beltola (Lokhora). Shri P.K. Das (CO) had stated on 14.09.04 that he did not verify the next day from the driver whether challans of items SMW20W40 were with the driver concerned and also did not verify in NPM stores whether items SMG20W40 had been deposited in NPM stores. The NPM Store Keeper Shri Khargeshwar Saikia SSW (SG) (MW 1) stated on 29.07.04 that he checked the materials in the truck as per the challan and when both materials and the challan tallied, he directed the labours to empty the truck. For example, five challans as per five times of lubricants were received and then entered in the Materials Receipt Log Register (Stores Deptt.) on page No. 203 against Log No. E111 dated 27.05.03 MW 1 also stated that whatever challans were received, materials were checked and entered. MW 2 has stated that materials other than SMG20W40 were received entered in the Register and GRV prepared and passed as referred in MDs. 14, 22, 33 & 40. MW 2 has stated that materials other than SMG20W40 were received entered in the Register and GRV prepared and passed as referred in MDs. 14, 22, 33 & 40. On comparison of the entries of lubricants in IOC Guwahati's Security Register and NPM's Materials Receipt Log Register (Stores Deptt.), it is found that there was a difference of 03 or 04 nos. barrels of lubricants which were received from IOC, Guwahati but were not deposited in NPM Stores. This refers M.Ds. 6, 7, 15, 16, 23, 24, 34, 35, 41 & 42. There is no record of the item SMG20W40 in Material Gate Register of CISF also, although other items are recorded. This refers M.Ds. 50 & 51. These 03 or 04 Nos. barrels of lubricants corresponded with the disputed nos. of barrels of the same lubricant as referred in the charge sheet issued to Shri P.K. Das (CO). It is therefore concluded beyond doubt that Shri P.K. Das (CO) had in fact unloaded the lubricant SMG20W40 at Beltola (Lakhora) or ASEB Gate and had removed the corresponding challan which he did not hand over to the driver concerned. 22. The petitioner was given opportunity to have his say against the enquiry report to which he had responded by his Annexure-XII representation dated 15.12.2004 in which he reiterated that his duty was only to see whether the materials had reached the CISF gate of the Corporation or not. Nothing specific was contended against the enquiry report. Rather, he contended that there might be loss of materials, but he was not responsible for the same. 23. The disciplinary authority considering the entire materials on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of dishonesty, deception and corrupt practice within the meaning of the provisions of the Certified Standard orders applicable to the Corporation and decided to impose the major penalty of removal from service with the stipulation that same would not be disqualification for future employment of the petitioner. When the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, the appellate authority also considered the materials on record and passed the Annexure-XV order dated 01.04.2005 rejecting the appeal. Nothing specific was urged in the appeal either any procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry or on merit of the case. 24. When the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, the appellate authority also considered the materials on record and passed the Annexure-XV order dated 01.04.2005 rejecting the appeal. Nothing specific was urged in the appeal either any procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry or on merit of the case. 24. In Bhagat Ram (supra), the Apex court dealing with the departmental enquiry viz-a-viz natural justice, held that the delinquent has a right to be represented by any Govt. servant in the departmental proceeding. It was also held that the punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. In the said case, the delinquent was not given opportunity to engage his defence assistant. This case is of no help to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was given opportunity to have defence assistant, but he declined to engage any. As regards the proposition that the punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of misconduct, it is not the case of the petitioner that even if the charge against him is held to have been established, the penalty imposed is disproportionate. 25. In Saroj Kr. Sinha (supra), it was held that non-furnishing of the fundamental documents on lame excuse was fatal to the enquiry. It was held that in absence of the related documents being foundation of the charge sheet, it was not possible for the delinquent to make effective, written statement of defence. In the instant case, the petitioner was given access to all the documents about which discussions have been made above. Throughout the enquiry he had never contended that he was handicapped because of non-furnishing of any documents. A vague statement without any specification cannot help the petitioner towards sustaining the plea of prejudice being caused in the departmental enquiry in absence of documents. As noted above, the disciplinary proceeding file speaks otherwise. 26. In T.N.C.S. Crop. Ltd. (supra) on which the learned counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance, the Apex Court dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of findings recorded by the enquiry and disciplinary authority, held that mere acquittal of the delinquent in a criminal proceeding ipso facto cannot lead to his exoneration in the departmental proceeding. In T.N.C.S. Crop. Ltd. (supra) on which the learned counsel for the Corporation has placed reliance, the Apex Court dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of findings recorded by the enquiry and disciplinary authority, held that mere acquittal of the delinquent in a criminal proceeding ipso facto cannot lead to his exoneration in the departmental proceeding. It has further been held that when the delinquent is found guilty of misappropriation of Corporation's fund, primary factor to be taken into consideration is the loss of confidence and not the amount of money misappropriated. In paragraph-35 of the judgment, it has been observed thus: 35. In the instant case, the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and, therefore, in our opinion, the matter should be dealt with firmly with firm hands and not leniently. In the instant case, the respondent deals with public money and is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity and, therefore, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, the conclusion of the learned Singh Judge as affirmed by the Division bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We have no hesitation to set aside the same and restore the order passed by the disciplinary authorities upholding the order of dismissal. 27. In S.N. Goyal (supra), it has been held that when the enquiry was found to be fair and proper and the finding of guilt in the enquiry in respect of a serious charge was found to be valid, in the absence of any other valid ground of challenge, the courts below ought to have held that the penalty of removal from service did not warrant any interference and dismissed the suit. In the instant case, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has placed reliance on this case to buttress his argument that the court exercising the writ jurisdiction will not sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority in respect of the penalty imposed. 28. The money suit that was filed by the respondent Corporation might have been dismissed, but the same by itself cannot make the departmental proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner redundant. The said proceeding was initiated for misconduct attributed to the petitioner and the same was established in the enquiry. 28. The money suit that was filed by the respondent Corporation might have been dismissed, but the same by itself cannot make the departmental proceeding that was initiated against the petitioner redundant. The said proceeding was initiated for misconduct attributed to the petitioner and the same was established in the enquiry. The Corporation having lost its confidence on the petitioner, it was within its jurisdiction and competence to remove the petitioner from service pursuant to the departmental proceeding in which the charge levelled against the petitioner was established. It is altogether a different thing that in the civil proceeding initiated against the petitioner for realisation of the amount misappropriated has been dismissed. During the course of hearing Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation had submitted that against the judgment of dismissal of the suit, an appeal is being preferred. Irrespective of the said position and even if the dismissal of the money suit filed by the respondent Corporation is accepted as finality to the matter, the concept of departmental proceeding viz-a-viz civil proceeding for realisation of the amount defrauded and/or loss to the employer because of the misconduct attributed to the delinquent, being quite distinct and different, the petitioner cannot harp upon the said civil proceeding so as to question the departmental proceeding in which he was found guilty of the charge. Having regard to the seriousness of the charge, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed