Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J, & T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. The appeal in W.A.Nos.2456 of 2010, is directed against the order dated 26.06.2009 in W.P.No.41533 of 2006 (O.A.No.3872 of 1999), by which the appellant challenged the punishment of reduction in time scale of pay to the basic pay for five years with cumulative effect, consequent upon which he was reverted to the post of Forest Guard. 2. The appeal in W.A.Nos.2457 of 2010, is directed against the order dated 26.06.2009 in W.P.No.42664 of 2006 (O.A.No.3526 of 1999). The petitioner is the appellant herein and he has challenged the punishment of reduction in rank for a period of three years with cumulative effect. 3. W.A.No.2458 of 2010, is directed against the order dated 07.10.2009 in W.P.No.19453 of 2007 (O.A.No.196 of 1999), by which the appellant challenged the punishment of reducing his scale of pay to the basic pay for three years with cumulative effect. 4. The charge against the appellants pertain to neglect in discharging their duties in not preventing ganja cultivation under their beat and also neglect of duty in destroying ganja crops within the forest areas. The grounds of challenge in all the writ petitions were identical and common submissions were made. The learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.Nos.41533 and 42664 of 2006 along with W.P.No.19469 of 2007 by common order dated 26.06.2009. However, no writ appeal was preferred as against the order in W.P.No.19469 of 2007 and writ appeals No.2456 & 2457 of 2010 have been preferred against W.P.Nos.41533 & 42664 of 2006 only. W.P.No.19453 of 2007 was dismissed by separate order dated 07.10.2009. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants after elaborately setting out the entire facts raised the contentions which were canvassed before the Writ Court and submitted that there is no discussion about the relevancy of the files and certain external matters were taken into consideration by the enquiry officer and that the enquiry officer erroneously shifted the burden on the appellants for disproving the charges and therefore, there is an patent error in the manner in which the domestic enquiry was conducted and therefore, the order of punishment calls for interference. 6. We have heard the learned Government Advocate on the above submissions and carefully perused the materials placed on record. 7. 6. We have heard the learned Government Advocate on the above submissions and carefully perused the materials placed on record. 7. On a perusal of the materials placed on record, it is evident that on a thorough assessment of both oral and documentary evidence, the enquiry officer has given a categorical finding that the appellants were guilty of the misconduct. It is noteworthy to point out that though the appellants were given an opportunity to cross examine the department witness, they failed to avail such opportunity and in such circumstances, the appellants cannot now contend that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer is erroneous nor there was denial of adequate opportunity to defend themselves. Further, on an examination of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the same does not indicate that the enquiry officer has shifted the burden on the appellants to disprove the charges levelled against them. The learned Single Judge considered the oral and documentary evidence placed before the enquiry officer and recorded a finding that the Court is satisfied that sufficient evidence has been let in, both oral and documentary, to prove that 10,000 ganja plants have been destroyed by the Special Officers, necessary entries have also been made in the files which were produced before the enquiry officer and therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be treated as one lacking in evidence. 8. It is a settled legal position that this Court while examining the correctness of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority cannot re-appreciate the evidence, which has been considered by the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision making process and not the decision. On assessment of the manner in which the domestic enquiry was conducted, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the order passed by the disciplinary authority, it cannot be stated that there has been any deficiency in the decision making process warranting interference with the order of punishment. Furthermore, the settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. Furthermore, the settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed before this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. In the light of the above, we are fully in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petitions and confirming the order of penalty imposed on the appellants. 10. In the result, the writ appeals being devoid of merits are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.