JUDGMENT : S.K. Mishra, J. - The Petitioner being the Board of Management of the Bonai Regional Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, represented by its Secretary, has filed this Writ Petition assailing the Judgment dated 26.09.2008 passed by the Learned Member, Co-operative tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in Service Dispute Case No. 17 of 2005, wherein the order dismissal of the Opp. Party No. 1 was set aside. The Opp. Party No. 1 was appointed as the Accountant of the Bonai R.C.M.S. at Rajamunda. Thereafter, he was deputed to MARKFED, Bhubaneswar. During his tenure as the Accountant of Bonai R.C.M.S. it is alleged that he misappropriated Rs. 43,000. It is further alleged that he misappropriated Rs. 1,30,718.87 & Rs. 7,78,756.77 towards the unaccounted for sale proceeds during his employment in the Bonai depot of the MARKFED. Though the disciplinary authority, i.e. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sundargarh appointed the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Panposh to hold enquiry regarding financial irregularity, as described above, committed by the Plaintiff, he (the ARCS) delegated the holding of inquiry to the Sub-Assistant Registrar, Panposh, who conducted enquiry unauthorizedly & submitted an inquiry report which according to Opp. Party No. 1 is invalid. The Opp. Party No. 1, further, contended before the Co-operative Tribunal that he was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The enquiring officer on his own verified some documents & held that the Plaintiff is guilty of misappropriation of Rs. 41,416, which he did not reflect in the cash book after receipt of that amount. He also found the Plaintiff guilty of misappropriation of fund of Rs. 1,30,718.87 & Rs. 7,87,453.77 when he was posted at Sundargarh & Bonai respectively. The Opp. Party No. 1, therefore, filed an application before the Learned Member, Co-operative Tribunal assailing the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the findings recorded by the enquiring officer, which was registered as Service Dispute Case No. 17 of 2005. 2. The Defendant, i.e. Petitioner filed written statement, inter alia, alleging that the Deputy Registrar had directed the Assistant Registrar to hold enquiry with regard to financial irregularity to the tune of Rs. 7,98,789.14 against the Plaintiff, which is still pending. The Defendant No. 2 appointed the Sub-Assistant Registrar as enquiring officer in the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against the Plaintiff. Basing on the enquiry report, the Plaintiff was dismissed from service. Regarding misappropriation of Rs. 7,98,789.14 against the Plaintiff, which is still pending. The Defendant No. 2 appointed the Sub-Assistant Registrar as enquiring officer in the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against the Plaintiff. Basing on the enquiry report, the Plaintiff was dismissed from service. Regarding misappropriation of Rs. 7,98,689.14 the Assistant Registrar is still continuing with the enquiry. So, it is contended that there was no delegation of the enquiry to the Sub-Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. It is, further, pleaded that the Plaintiff was not given adequate affordable opportunity to defence his case. 3. On such findings, the Learned Member, Cooperative Tribunal framed issues regarding the maintainability of the proceeding, validity of the departmental proceeding, fairness & legality of the dismissal order & the relief to which the Opp. Party No. 1 may be entitled to. 4. Both the parties have examined witnesses in this case. The Learned Member, Cooperative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, thereafter, held that the entire inquiry & the punishment awarded betrays non-application of mind & non-observance of principles of natural justice & accordingly, it is held that the punishment is not fair & is illegal, & hence, the order of dismissal dated 26.05.2005 communicated in letter No. 21 dated 26.05.2005 is set aside. Such order has been assailed in this Writ Petition. 5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that even if no evidence has been led in the departmental proceeding, there are sufficient materials on record to establish the charge framed by the disciplinary authority, & therefore, the Co-operative Tribunal has committed error on record by setting aside the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. Alternatively, it is submitted that even though the Court comes to the conclusion that evidence should have been led then the matter should be remanded back to the stage where such irregularity was committed & the Petitioner should be given a another chance of leading evidence in this case to substantiate charge against the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties, on the other hand, submits that since no evidence has been led, the party on whom the onus rest must fail & the Writ Court should not interfere with the finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the ratio decided In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Parties, on the other hand, submits that since no evidence has been led, the party on whom the onus rest must fail & the Writ Court should not interfere with the finding of the fact recorded by the Tribunal. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the ratio decided In Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. B.K. Srivastava, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal against the orders of disciplinary & Appellate authorities in exercising of its power of judicial review. The Tribunal can, however, come to a conclusion that the proceeding conducted by the enquiring officer was violative of principles of natural justice. It is settled principle that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the orders passed by the disciplinary authority or the factual finding reached by the enquiring officer. However, in this case, there is no re-appreciation of evidence. The Learned Member, Co-operative Tribunal has come to the conclusion that from the written statement filed by the Petitioner, it transpires that for the self-same charge the Assistant Registrar held enquiry for financial irregularity of Rs. 7,98,789.14 allegedly made by Opp. Party No. 1 The Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies Defendant No. 1, in his letter, which has been marked as Ext3, directed the Assistant Registrar to hold enquiry in respect of financial irregularity to the tune of Rs. 7,98,789.14, whereas as per Ext. E, the authenticity of which, as admitted by the Petitioner, Assistant Registrar delegated the enquiry in the disciplinary proceeding to the Sub-Assistant Registrar. Therefore, the Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that though it appears for a part of the same charges, the Assistant Registrar was conducting the enquiry & for the other part, the Sub-Assistant Registrar was holding enquiry & submitted enquiry report on the basis of which the Opp. Party No. 1 has been dismissed from service. The Learned Member, Co-operative Tribunal, further, held that no evidence has been led by the Petitioner before the enquiring officer on the basis of which it has come to the finding that the Opp. Party No. 1 has misappropriated Rs. 1,30,718.87 & Rs. 7,87,753.77. From the enquiry report, it is, further, clear that on the basis of subsequent report, personal hearing & after issuing show-cause notice, the punishment of termination from service is awarded. Party No. 1 has misappropriated Rs. 1,30,718.87 & Rs. 7,87,753.77. From the enquiry report, it is, further, clear that on the basis of subsequent report, personal hearing & after issuing show-cause notice, the punishment of termination from service is awarded. The Learned Member, Co-operative Tribunal also took into consideration the fact that D.W.1, the enquiring officer has stated in his evidence that he has not taken oral evidence from either party but asked some questions to them that the Secretary of the Society produced the documents & pointed out the relevant portions of the cash book in which the Plaintiff has received the amounts on different dates. As per the documents produced before him, he reached at the conclusion that the Plaintiff has misappropriated the amounts. There is no record of what question were asked by the enquiring officer to the Secretary of the Society & the Opp. Party No. 1 & what documents were produced during enquiry & if the Opp. Party No. 1 was made aware of such document & entries made thereon. On such reasoning, the Learned Member, Co-operative Tribunal has passed award impugned. 7. On analysis of the factual background, it is clear that the RCMS was appointed as the enquiring officer but he did not conduct the enquiry & delegated a portion of the enquiry to be conducted by the Sub-Assistant Registrar. On the basis of his report, the Assistant Registrar came to the finding regarding misappropriation of part of the money alleged to have been misappropriated. It is, further, apparent from the records that the enquiring officer in course of enquiry did not examine any witnesses nor exhibited any documents in the enquiry report & only on the basis of examination of certain documents & some query the finding has been arrived at by the enquiring officer. Now, it is trite law that even though the law of evidence or the law of civil procedure is not applicable to departmental proceedings but there has to be some legally admissible evidence against the delinquent, on the basis of which, the enquiring officer can come to the conclusion that the delinquent is guilty as charged. If no evidence is led then the party on whom the onus rest must fail. In a departmental proceeding onus is to the Management to establish the charges leveled against the delinquent officer. If no evidence is led then the party on whom the onus rest must fail. In a departmental proceeding onus is to the Management to establish the charges leveled against the delinquent officer. Unless materials are placed before the enquiry officer, he cannot come to the conclusion that delinquent is guilty. In this case, there is a singular lack of evidence. Therefore, the Learned Member, Co-operative Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the departmental proceeding is illegal & the orders passed in pursuance thereto has been set aside. 8. The High Court in exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not act as an Appellate authority. It exercises its jurisdiction within the limits of judicial review to correct error of law or procedural law leading to manifest injustice or avoidable jurisdiction by the principles of natural justice. In this case, no error has been pointed out nor any finding in that behalf, was recorded. So, there is hardly any scope to come to a different conclusion than the one reached by the Co-operative Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that the order passed by the Learned Member, Cooperative Tribunal does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality & therefore, there is no scope for interference with the same. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit & the same is dismissed. No costs. The records produced by the Management be returned to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Final Result : Dismissed