Judgment : By Court - This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.3.2013 , whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, quashing the punishment of reduction of the scale in the lower grade. 2. The respondent was an employee of the appellant-Steel Authority of India Limited and working in the post of Senior Executive(Stores) in the Materials Management Division. He was transferred on 30.10.1996 and joined in the same on 7.11.1996. The respondent while working in B.F. (SubStores) was chargesheeted for the acts of omission and commission which contravened clause 4.0(1)(ii) and 5.0 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977. The charges levelled against the respondent is that the respondent while dealing the case of M/s Quality Rubber Industries, BIADA, who supplied substandard Air Hose against the P.O. No.80053 dated 20.11.1995 and P.O.No.P79770, had not given notices in time, thereby no recovery was made from the party, which termed as loss to the Company. It was also alleged that the rejected material remained in the Stores occupying valuable space of the Stores, as the party did not take back the material. The enquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer held that the second charge is proved against the respondent. Based on the findings of the Inquiry Officer, by order dated 3.1.2002 the disciplinary authority imposed punishment by order dated 3.1.2002 reducing the respondent to the post of Executive(E1) in the scale of Rs.10,70530016750/. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal on 18.1.2002, which was rejected on 25.2.2002. 3. Challenging the order of punishment imposed, the respondent, has filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5621 of 2002. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge held that no no attempt has been made by the Inquiry Officer or disciplinary authority to ascertain the truthfulness of the stand taken by the respondent and the stand of the respondent that he has taken prompt action was not properly considered by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The learned Single Judge further held that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the relevant materials and arrived at a wrong conclusion and passed the order imposing penalty dated 3.1.2002 and the appellate authority has also ignored this aspect of the matter and erroneously rejected the appeal. Referring to the judgments of Narinder Mohan arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. The learned Single Judge further held that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the relevant materials and arrived at a wrong conclusion and passed the order imposing penalty dated 3.1.2002 and the appellate authority has also ignored this aspect of the matter and erroneously rejected the appeal. Referring to the judgments of Narinder Mohan arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., reported in (2006)4SCC 713 and Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India and ors., reported in (1987)4 SCC 611 , the learned Single Judge held that the judicial review is not directed against the decision but is directed against the decision making process. The learned Single Judge took the view that the respondent at the first instance had issued preemptory notices to the supplier and that nothing has been brought on record by the department that the respondent alone can be held responsible for taking no further action in the matter. The learned Single Judge further held that it may be a mistake on the part of the respondent and for that penalty which has been imposed on the respondent could not have been imposed by any reasonable employer. On this finding, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 3.1.2002 and also the order of the appellate authority dated 25.2.2002. 4. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that it cannot be said to be a case of no evidence, warranting interference with the decision taken by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. Drawing our attention to the report of the Inquiry Officer, the learned counsel submitted that on the basis of materials available on record, charge no. II has been framed and substantiated and while allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge was not right in saying that the finding is based on no materials and department has not taken into consideration the stand of the respondent. II has been framed and substantiated and while allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge was not right in saying that the finding is based on no materials and department has not taken into consideration the stand of the respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that in any event, even if the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the charge levelled against the respondent, the Writ Court ought to have remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority for imposing an appropriate punishment and the learned Single Judge was not in right in quashing the entire order of punishment and also the order of the appellate authority. 5. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the respondent was transferred on 30.10.1996 and assumed charges on 7.11.1996 and that he cannot be held responsible for the goods supplied prior to his joining. Learned counsel submitted that in any event when the matter was brought to the notice of the respondent, he immediately issued final notices to the supplier on 24.12.1996 and, therefore, the alleged act of omission or commission cannot be termed as misconduct. The learned counsel further submitted that having assumed the new charge, the respondent cannot be blamed. In this connection, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to AnnexureH, the communication issued by the superior authority, from which it appears that 90% amount has been paid to M/s Quality Rubber Industries against delivery challan and, therefore, direction for recovery from the further bills of the party has been issued and thus no financial loss has been caused to the Steel Authority of India, attracting imposition of major punishment of reduction of the scale in the lower grade. 6. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent was transferred to B.F. (Sub-Stores) on 30.4.1996 and he assumed charges on 7.11.1996. It is not in dispute that M/s Quality Rubber Industries has supplied the goods much prior to the joining of respondent in B.F.(SubStores). 7. It is not in dispute that the respondent was transferred to B.F. (Sub-Stores) on 30.4.1996 and he assumed charges on 7.11.1996. It is not in dispute that M/s Quality Rubber Industries has supplied the goods much prior to the joining of respondent in B.F.(SubStores). As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, inspite of the fact that Inquiry Officer has recorded a clear finding that after issuance of final and preemptory notice to the party on 24.12.1996, the respondent has not taken further steps for finally rejecting the goods supplied by M/s Quality Rubber Industries, resultantly immediate steps could not be taken for recovery of 90% of the payment already made and because of non lifting of goods, the goods were lying in the Stores which, according to the department, is very valuable space. 8. In paraix of the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer clearly dealt with and recorded the finding of fact that charge no.II has been proved therefore, it cannot be said to be a case of no evidence or no appreciation of facts, which led to the wrong conclusion. Exercising the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court can interfere with the finding of the disciplinary authority/ appellate authority in case of no evidence or where there is no appreciation of facts. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not right in interfering with the finding of fact arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and saying that the stand of the respondent has not been properly considered. 9. In sofar as the quantum of punishment imposed, the respondent has been reduced to lower post of Executive (E1) in the scale of Rs.1075030016750/and also holding that the seniority will be counted in the lower post from 3.1.2002, it is to be pointed out that the respondent has assumed charge on 7.11.1996 and required some time to have acquaintance with the procedure involved and, therefore, charge no.II proved against the respondent cannot be said to be so grave in nature, so as to attract a major punishment of reducing to the lower scale as well as reducing of seniority also. 10. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent has also drawn our attention to AnnexureH in which the superior authority has also ordered that 90% payment already made to M/s Quality Rubber Industries will be adjusted in future bills. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, it cannot be said that Steel Authority of India will be suffering from the financial loss, so as to impose major punishment of reduction to lower scale and also refixing the seniority also. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that it was only an act of omission and not amounting to misconduct, as the learned Single Judge has held. 12. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and the learned Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter back before the appellant-Steel Authority of India Ltd. to impose the appropriate minor penalty, in view of the fact that it is not a charge proved against the respondent, inviting major punishment. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.(S) No. 5621 of 2002 dated 15.3.2013 is set aside and Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed. The matter is remitted to the appellant-Steel Authority of India Ltd. for imposing an appropriate minor punishment, for which the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. L.P.A. partly allowed.