JUDGMENT 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.8.2000 (Annexure - 22) passed by the respondent No. 2, The Chief Conservator of Forest cum Managing Director, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. , whereby he has been dismissed from service. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Accountant on 25.5.1978, was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer in October, 1987 and posted at Minor Forest Produce Project, Ranchi. He was placed under suspension on 20.3.1993 and vide memo no. 62(8) dated 15.6.1993 charge sheet was served upon him. He approached the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1477 of 1994(R) challenging the suspension which was however disposed of with a direction to the respondents to conclude the proceedings within a period of 6 months from the date of filing of show cause by the petitioner vide order dated 23.12.1994(Annexure-2). The petitioner furnished his show cause on 19.1.1995 and thereafter, on 15.9.1995 another charge sheet was served upon him vide Annexure-7. The said proceeding ultimately led to his dismissal vide order dated 28.9.1995, which were assailed in C.W.J.C. No. 2527 of 1996(R). The order of dismissal was set aside on 25.2.2000 by the Patna High Court directing the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of reply to the show cause by the petitioner and to conclude the same within a period of 4 months from the date of communication of the order. It was also mentioned that if the petitioner makes any dilatory tactics to flout the time frame as mentioned above, the Enquiry Officer so appointed would be entitled to proceed ex-parte against the petitioner also and, if possible, the inquiry proceeding should be conducted on day to day basis to maintain the time frame. Subsequent, thereto the petitioner joined service 10.3.2000 and new Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 25.3.2000 vide Annexure-6. The petitioner was asked to reply to both the proceedings vide order dated 3.4.2000(Annexure-8). Petitioner, accordingly submitted his reply and supplementary reply vide Annexure-9 dated 24.4.2000 and 26.4.2000. The Enquiry Officer informed the petitioner that proceeding would be held on 19.5.2000. The petitioner was asked to reply to both the proceedings vide order dated 3.4.2000(Annexure-8). Petitioner, accordingly submitted his reply and supplementary reply vide Annexure-9 dated 24.4.2000 and 26.4.2000. The Enquiry Officer informed the petitioner that proceeding would be held on 19.5.2000. On that day, it is the contention of the petitioner, that he was asked to furnish the list of concerned documents and list of witnesses and, thereafter, the matter was adjourned for the next date of inquiry to be held at Ranchi on 23.5.2000 and 24.5.2000. According to the petitioner, he was supplied statement of 3 range Officers namely P.K. Naik, Bharatendu Kumar and Ghanshyam Bhagat on 20.5.2000 for cross examination. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that the inquiry was concluded and the inquiry report was submitted on 26.6.2000 and forwarded to the petitioner on 29.6.2000 vide Annexure-20. The petitioner submitted his reply on 31.7.2000(Annexure-21). However, the impugned order of dismissal from service has been passed on 26.8.2000 vide Annexurre-22 with further direction to realize a sum of Rs. 9,42,200 from petitioner. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the inquiry proceeding has been held without complying the Principle of Natural Justice. Statements of witnesses were recorded behind his back and the petitioner was never given opportunity to lead his evidence before the Enquiry Officer. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer relied upon various documents including vouchers, cheque book etc. which were never produced or proved during the course of departmental inquiry. It is further submitted that though in the inquiry proceeding 7 witnesses are said to have been produced on behalf of the Presenting Officer but the petitioner never got opportunity to cross examine them. They did not depose during the course of inquiry proceeding and the petitioner never got an opportunity to cross examine them. It is further contention of the petitioner that after submission of the inquiry report and second show cause petitioner filed a detailed reply which the disciplinary authority failed to take into consideration while passing the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has assailed the impugned order of dismissal as being wholly arbitrary, illegal and in complete violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Bijlani Vrs. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has assailed the impugned order of dismissal as being wholly arbitrary, illegal and in complete violation of Principle of Natural Justice. Petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Bijlani Vrs. Union of India & others reported in 2006(5) SCC 88 in order to advance his submission that the disciplinary authority has to deal with the contention of the delinquent's statement in his reply before passing an order of punishment, which must show application of mind. He further relies upon the Judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vrs. Punjab National Bank & others reported in 2009(2) SCC 570 , para 23 thereof to submit that the order of disciplinary authority must show reasons for passing an order of dismissal after dealing with the contention of the delinquent as also application of mind on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 4. Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Prabhash Kumar, on the other hand has submitted that the delinquent was holding the post of Assistant Accounts Officer under the Respondents- Corporation in Minor Forest Produce Project, Ranchi for the relevant period 1989- 1992 and after his transfer it was detected that he had indulged in embezzlement of public money for which departmental proceeding was initiated vide Office order dated 15.6.1993 for the period 1991-92. The charges related to serious misconduct of obtaining advance through cheques in the name of the petitioner as also bearer cheques for execution of the work relating to the Minor Forest Produce Project under the respondent- corporation, which were being executed through the Range Officers'. As such, it was detected that a sum of Rs.2,50,200/- had been misappropriated by the petitioner in connivance with the Divisional Manager without making such advance to the Range Officers' concerned who were supposed to execute the work and without adjustment of such advance through valid vouchers etc showing their physical utilization. It is submitted on his behalf that his successor, Diwakar Jha detected such act of huge embezzlement of public money and on inquiry and audit, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. 5. Subsequently, the audit of the aforesaid office was conducted for previous years also upon suspicion of such acts of embezzlement having done by the petitioner and the Divisional Manager of the corporation. 5. Subsequently, the audit of the aforesaid office was conducted for previous years also upon suspicion of such acts of embezzlement having done by the petitioner and the Divisional Manager of the corporation. Thereafter, the second charge sheet was also issued on 15.9.1995 which related to the period 1989-90, 1990 -91 , during the tenure of petitioner as Assistant Accounts Officer at the Minor Produce Project, Ranchi wherein also serious charges of embezzlement were found in respect of public money amounting to Rs. 1,29,000 and Rs. 5,54,000 respectively for the two financial years. It was detected that the petitioner had indulged in obtaining advances through bearer cheques in the name of execution of work in the range offices, though such amount were not given as advance to the Range Officers' and later on it was detected during the course of audit. It is further submitted that such acts are of serious financial fraud. The petitioner being the Assistant Accounts Officer was not at all entitled to obtain bearer cheques for such huge amount which could only be issued in the name of Range Officers' who also have separate accounts in their name for such execution of work relating to minor produce . It is the contention of the respondents that in respect of each of these financial years for the period of 1989-92, 3 criminal cases were instituted by separate F.I.R.s' in which petitioner along with the Divisional Manager, Mr. B.N. Tiwary were named as accused. The said Divisional Manager however retired only after few days of the detection of such acts of embezzlement and as such he was not proceeded departmentally. 6. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had approached the Court of Judicial Commissioner at Ranchi for grant of anticipatory bail and it was recorded in the order on 30.7.1993 passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, which is annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit that the petitioner had himself submitted that he had received all necessary papers from the Office of the Enquiry Officer, Hazaribag on being released on provisional bail for the aforesaid purpose (annexed as Annexure-D/2). 7. 7. Counsel for the respondent- corporation has drawn the attention of this Court to the deposition of the petitioner annexed at Annexure-12 to the writ application itself to show that the petitioner had in his reply during examination accepted that he was responsible for maintaining accounts and that issue of such cheques were undertaken by opening separate files. He also deposed that he did not handover relevant files to his successor. Counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner in his deposition has stated that he had obtained all documents relating to the enquiry for his defence. Counsel for the respondent has also pointed out to the directions contained in the deposition recorded on 19.5.2000 wherein the petitioner was informed to furnish list of such persons whom he wants to cross examine and also that the next sitting of inquiry would be held in Ranchi on 23.5.2000 and 24.5.2000. 8. It is further stated that in respect of statements of each of 7 witness , petitioner was specifically asked as to whether he wants to cross examine them to which he had replied in negative. Counsel for the respondent submitted that specific questions were posed to the petitioner for cross examining the witnesses such as Mr. P.K.Naik, Bhartendu Kumar, Ghanshyam Bhagat, D.K.Banerjee, Sailendra Kumar Singh and Diwakar Jha, his successor and on each instance petitioner has replied in negative. Counsel for the respondent, therefore, submits that as per the direction of the Patna HighCourt passed in C.W.J.C no. 2527 of 1996 dated 25.2.2000 the proceedings were conducted in proper manner with sense of urgency and concluded after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was not only given access to all the documents but he was also allowed opportunity to cross examine all the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution which he refused to examine. It is submitted that after inquiry proceedings were concluded inquiry report was submitted and the second show cause was served upon the petitioner along with copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner, thereafter, furnished his reply which was taken into account by the disciplinary authority and by a well reasoned order, the petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of proved charges of such serious embezzlement of public money and its misappropriation by the employee who was in a position of trust. 9. The petitioner, thereafter, furnished his reply which was taken into account by the disciplinary authority and by a well reasoned order, the petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of proved charges of such serious embezzlement of public money and its misappropriation by the employee who was in a position of trust. 9. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttranchal Transport Corporation Vrs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal reported in 2008(12) SCC 131 , in the case of Divisional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vrs. Kamruddin reported in 2009(7) SCC 552 and also in the case of Chandra Kumar Chopra Vrs. Union of India reported in 2012(6) SCC 369 to submit that in a case of financial embezzlement and defalcation of public money by the delinquent employee holding position of trust, no leniency should be granted to the delinquent if the charges are found to be established against him in the departmental inquiry. The relationship of trust between the employer and employee stands betrayed. He has further submitted that the acts of the petitioner has lead to the loss of confidence of the respondent- employer and, therefore, the punishment no less than dismissal from service is warranted in such circumstances. Respondent has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited & another Vrs. Mukul Kumar Choudhari & others reported in 2009(15) SCC 620 in order to advance his submission that disciplinary proceedings has been conducted in a proper manner and the writ Court should not interfere in the findings of fact which have been arrived at in a proper manner after due opportunity to the delinquent. Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the points that unless the findings of the inquiry report are illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or are shocking to the conscience of the Court, this Court should not exercise its power of judicial review by substituting its own decision in place of the decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority since, this Court does not sit in the manner of an appellate forum. Counsel for the respondent has therefore justified the impugned order of dismissal of the delinquent employee against whom an amount of Rs.9,40,000/- of public money have been also ordered to be recovered . 10. Counsel for the respondent has therefore justified the impugned order of dismissal of the delinquent employee against whom an amount of Rs.9,40,000/- of public money have been also ordered to be recovered . 10. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. The facts which have been borne on record show that after the petitioner was transferred from his place of posting at Minor Produce Project, Ranchi it was detected by his successor, Diwakar Jha that huge amount of public money were taken in advance though bearer cheques which were not adjusted or accounted for. On detection of such cases of embezzlement of public money the petitioner, who was a Assistant Accounts Officer and in-charge of the Accounts Department at the relevant point of time from 1989-92 was initially proceeded against by serving the memo of charge on 15.6.1993 for embezzlement of public money amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- for taking advance in the nature of cheque for execution of work relating relating to Minor Forest Produce Project. Such advance were not made to the Range Officers' concerned and were not accounted for by showing any valid vouchers for the same in his defence. The Divisional Manager, B.N. Tiwary and the petitioner were also implicated in criminal cases for misappropriation of public money for the said period. It further appears that the respondents, thereafter, conducted audit of the previous years and found further case of embezzlement of public money total amounting to Rs. 1,29,000 and Rs. 5,54,000 respectively for the two financial years i.e. 1989-90, 90-91 for which a separate charge sheet was also issued on 15.9.1995. The petitioner was dismissed from service after conclusion of the said inquiry proceeding on 28.9.1995. However he challenged the same in C.W.J.C. No. 2527 of 1996(R). The Patna High Court vide judgment dated 25.2.2000 allowed the said writ petition finding that the inquiry proceeding has been conducted without giving due opportunity to the petitioner in violation of Principle of Natural Justice. However, it was directed that the inquiry proceeding shall continue from the stage of reply to the show cause and should be concluded within a period of 4 months with further observation that if the petitioner fails to cooperate in the inquiry, Enquiry Officer may proceed ex-parte. 11. However, it was directed that the inquiry proceeding shall continue from the stage of reply to the show cause and should be concluded within a period of 4 months with further observation that if the petitioner fails to cooperate in the inquiry, Enquiry Officer may proceed ex-parte. 11. Thereafter, in the departmental enquiry started the petitioner was asked to submit his reply in both the proceedings. Petitioner submitted his reply as well as supplementary reply vide Annexure-9 in the inquiry. Fresh Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed in view of the direction of the Patna High Court. Petitioner participated in the inquiry and it appears that he was, on every occasion given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who were present and whose statements were given to him during the inquiry proceeding. It appears from the deposition of the petitioner itself that he was served with the statements of each of the witnesses and was asked to cross examine each one of them by the Inquiry Officer in their presence, which he refused to do. It further appears that the petitioner had himself accepted during the course of inquiry that he had received all the documents which he also stated at the time of grant of anticipatory bail and also during the course of his deposition before the Inquiry Officer on 19.5.2000. The petitioner was informed that the proceeding would be held at Ranchi which he accepted. Thereafter, petitioner again participated in the inquiry which was held at Ranchi where as stated herein above he was given opportunity to cross examine the individual witnesses, who were presented by the prosecution during the course of inquiry. As a matter of fact during the course of inquiry he himself accepted the instances of such issuances of cheques which were not accounted for. 12. The guilt of the petitioner was found to be proved by the Inquiry Officer. He submitted his inquiry report and the petitioner was, thereafter given second show cause along with the enquiry report to reply to the same. Though the petitioner furnished elaborate reply to the effect that he did not have enough opportunity to inspect documents, the witnesses and documents relied upon by the respondents were not produced during the course of inquiry. He submitted his inquiry report and the petitioner was, thereafter given second show cause along with the enquiry report to reply to the same. Though the petitioner furnished elaborate reply to the effect that he did not have enough opportunity to inspect documents, the witnesses and documents relied upon by the respondents were not produced during the course of inquiry. However, as has been stated herein above it would appear from the record that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to cross examine each of the witnesses relied upon by the Presenting Officer during the course of inquiry. He had also accepted of having obtained all the necessary documents which are relevant for his defence. The disciplinary authority on consideration of his reply, thereafter, proceeded to pass a reasoned order by which the punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him. From these facts, therefore it appears that the departmental inquiry has proceeded in a proper manner by giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and further giving opportunity to file his reply to the second show cause before the order of punishment has been passed. Therefore, the inquiry proceeding and the subsequent order of dismissal does not appear to be vitiated for failure to comply the Principle of Natural Justice. 13. This Court in exercise of powers of judicial reviews is not required to weigh evidence relating to the guilt of the delinquent which were established on preponderance of probabilities during the course of inquiry after giving due opportunity to the delinquent to defend himself. This Court does not sit in appeal over the merits of the case as an Appellate Body and is only required to see whether the decision making process is proper or is otherwise vitiated in law or on facts. In the facts of the present case, as has been noted herein above, the departmental proceeding does not appear to be vitiated in law. The petitioner was holding the position of trust as an Assistant Accounts Officer in the Accounts Department of the Division at the relevant point of time. On account of his serious misconduct causing severe loss to public exchequer the employer has lost confidence in him which has lead to the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service. 14. The petitioner was holding the position of trust as an Assistant Accounts Officer in the Accounts Department of the Division at the relevant point of time. On account of his serious misconduct causing severe loss to public exchequer the employer has lost confidence in him which has lead to the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service. 14. In my opinion the imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is not at all disproportionate to the misconduct, which has been found to be established against him. In these circumstances, therefore, the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for interference with the impugned order in exercise of powers of Judicial review by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.