JUDGMENT :- R. Banumathi, J. & T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A.No.970 of 2012, dated 28.06.2013. 2. The petitioner filed the Original Application before the Tribunal challenging the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him by the disciplinary authority, by order dated 23.12.2011, as confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority by orders dated 12.01.2012, and 23.07.2012 respectively. 3. The Tribunal on consideration of the contentions raised and on perusal of the materials placed on record, dismissed the application holding that the punishment of compulsory retirement with 75% pension and 75% gratuity is lenient and no case has been made out to interfere with the said order. 4. Assailing the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal, Mr.T.S.Rajmohan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the petitioner was not subjected to medical examination and the allegation that he misbehaved with the other staff under the influence of alcohol has not been established in the manner known to law and this basic flaw was not rightly appreciated by the Tribunal. It was further contended that the burden of proof is on the department and when the petitioner was not subjected to any medical examination, the department did not discharge the onus cast upon them, which vitiates the entire proceedings. 5. The petitioner, who was working as an Accounts Assistant in the respondent organization, was issued a charge sheet dated 19.08.2010, for having failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a responsible railway servant. The charge being that during office hours, he would come inside the section under the influence of alcohol and pick up quarrel with the staff and prevent them from discharging their duties; on 30.06.2010, he entered the room of the officers in a drunken state and threatened the officers with dire consequence, besides misbehaving with other staff; that the petitioner will sign the attendance in the forenoon and thereafter disappear for the whole day and not attend to the work allotted to him. Consequently, the work allotted to the petitioner had to be distributed to other staff in order to ensure timely payment of settlement claims in the electrical workshop. 6. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his findings dated 21.09.2011 holding that the charges proved. Consequently, the work allotted to the petitioner had to be distributed to other staff in order to ensure timely payment of settlement claims in the electrical workshop. 6. Domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his findings dated 21.09.2011 holding that the charges proved. The petitioner submitted his further explanation and the disciplinary authority after considering the entire matter imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service with 75% pension and 75% gratuity. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority, by order dated 17.02.2012, and confirmed by the revisional authority, by order dated 20.07.2012. 7. From a perusal of the findings of the enquiry officer, it is seen that a preliminary enquiry was conducted on 09.03.2011 in which the petitioner stated that he does not require a defence helper. A full-fledged enquiry was conducted on 20.06.2011, in which the petitioner participated in which five witnesses were examined as departmental witnesses and they were cross examined by the petitioner. The enquiry officer took note of the statement given by the petitioner in the enquiry, in which the petitioner accepted that consumption of alcohol during office hours is punishable. The complaint lodged in this regard on 04.05.2010, 30.06.2010, the deposition of witness No.1, who was cross examined by the petitioner and the apology letter given by the petitioner, which was marked as document No.4 and other documents were considered and the enquiry officer held that the charges were proved. 8. For the first time, in the written statement given by the petitioner on receipt of the copy of the findings of the enquiry officer, a faint plea was raised by the petitioner stating that he was not medically tested to prove that he was under the influence of alcohol. The disciplinary authority taking note of the findings of the enquiry officer and that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity in the enquiry proceedings and taking note of the admission of the petitioner during the oral enquiry that he entered the room of the senior official in a drunken state on 30.06.2010, imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement. This order was confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities by assigning reasons. 9. This order was confirmed by the appellate and the revisional authorities by assigning reasons. 9. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmala J.Jhala vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., [ (2013) 4 SCC 301 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the legal issue as regards the standard of proof in a departmental enquiry and after taking note of the earlier decisions held as follows:- 17. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that the disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial, and in spite of this fact that the same are quasi-judicial and quasi-criminal, doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt, does not apply in such cases, but the principles of preponderance of probabilities would apply. The court has to see whether there is evidence on record to reach the conclusion that the delinquent had committed a misconduct. However, the said conclusion should be reached on the basis of test of what a prudent person would have done. 10. The legal principle is that the departmental proceedings being a quasi-judicial one, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. There should be some evidence to prove the charge and the enquiry officer who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charge on the basis of the materials on record. 11. In the preceding paragraphs we have discussed above the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the admission of guilt in a statement given by the petitioner, that the petitioner had cross examined the departmental witnesses and also recorded a satisfaction that the departmental proceedings were conducted in a proper manner. 12. All these factors were considered by the Tribunal and it has been held that the order of punishment is infact a lenient one, compared to the charge of misconduct against the petitioner. 13. The scope of judicial review in such matters has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Nirmala J.Jhala, referred supra, and it is beneficial to quote the relevant portion:- 24...... Neither the question as to whether there was sufficient evidence before the authority can be raised/examined, nor the question of re-appreciating the evidence to examine the correctness of the order under challenge. Neither the question as to whether there was sufficient evidence before the authority can be raised/examined, nor the question of re-appreciating the evidence to examine the correctness of the order under challenge. If there are sufficient grounds for passing an order, then even if one of them is found to be correct, and on its basis the order impugned can be passed, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere..... 14. As noticed above, there is no violation of principles of natural justice and there is no error of law or procedural error for this Court to exercise its power of judicial review in this matter. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.