JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant, J. This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 21/11/2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 6182/04 whereby the said court has dismissed the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused paper on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ appellant Shri Akil Ali was appointed as a Sweeper with the State Bank of India, Branch Umroi Cantonment. 4. On 6/9/2001, the charge sheet was served on him alleging that on 17/05/2001 an amount of Rs. 42,530/- (Rupees forty two thousand five hundred thirty) was stolen from the cash counter of the branch. It was, further, alleged that on the same date after the search, the said amount of Rs. 42,530/-(Rupees forty two thousand five hundred thirty) was recovered from the house of the appellant/petitioner who confessed the guilt. However, the appellant denied the charge in reply to the charge sheet during the Departmental Proceedings. After enquiry, the writ appellant was found guilty and was served with the copy of enquiry report where after vide order dated 26/5/2003, the writ appellant was removed from the service. Aggrieved by the order dated 26/5/2003, the writ appellant filed statutory appeal before the Departmental Authority, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 28/6/2004. Consequently WP(C) No.6182/04 was filed by the writ petitioner (the appellant before this court). 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in law in dismissing the writ petition by ignoring the fact that the cashier Shri Ajit Kumar Sarma denied the fact that the cash was stolen from his counter. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the writ appellant and also perused the copy of the report of enquiry. It is true that one of the witnesses has not supported the charge against the writ appellant but other witnesses have adduced evidence against him. Apart from this, there appears to be confession made by the writ appellant after recovery of Rs. 42,530/- was made from his house from the sack of rice which contained the denominations of currency which were lost in the Bank. 6. Apart from this, there appears to be confession made by the writ appellant after recovery of Rs. 42,530/- was made from his house from the sack of rice which contained the denominations of currency which were lost in the Bank. 6. In our opinion, the learned single Judge rightly observed that the writ court is not an appellate Court and cannot re-appreciate the evidence and say that which witnesses should or should not have been believed. In the writ jurisdiction this Court can only see as to whether or not the rules were followed and whether or not the principle of natural justice adhered to or not. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that he was not given opportunity to defend himself. We concur with the learned single Judge that the writ petitioner was given proper opportunity to defend himself before he was held guilty. The punishment is also not disproportionate to the charge proved against the delinquent employee. 7. Therefore, we do not find any force in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.