JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee for the petitioner and learned State counsel, Mr. D.C. Nath for the respondents. Under Memo No. F. 4(1-2833)-DSE/98 of the Directorate of the School Education, Government of Tripura dated 11 February, 2000, a disciplinary proceeding for gross misconduct was drawn up against the petitioner and another Sunil Chandra Das on the following Article of Charge:- STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST SARVASHREE SUNIL CHANDRA DAS, ASSISTANT HEADMASTER AND MD. MASADDAR ALI, ASSISTANT TEACHER, IRANI HIGH SCHOOL UNDER INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, KAILASHAHAR, NORTH TRIPURA. Article-I That Sarvashree Sunil Chandra Das and Md. Masaddar Ali, while serving as an Assistant Headmaster and as an Assistant Teacher in Irani High School under Inspector of Schools, Kailashahar, North Tripura jointly involved in leakage of Mathematics Question paper of Madhyamik Test Examination, 1997 and thus the aforesaid involvement of the employees mentioned above dislocated the total Madhyamik Test Examination, 1997 programme for which the authority had to cancel the Madhyamik Test Question paper all over Kailashahar Sub-Division and had to arrange for the said examination afresh, such activities are highly mischievous to schooling atmosphere in respect of the conduct of examination and amount to gross misconduct on the part of the Govt. servants. Therefore the aforesaid act of Sri Sunil Chandra Das, Assistant Headmaster and Md. Masaddar Ali, Assistant Teacher violated the provision of Rule 3 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) (Third Amendment) Rules, 1998 which is a good and sufficient reason within the meaning of Rules as mentioned in the order under Rule 18 of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 enclosing. This Memorandum to proceed against them. 2. The statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehavior was annexed as Annexure-II to the Memo dated 11.02.2000 and the list of documents and list of witnesses were annexed as Annexure-III and Annexure-IV to the said Memo. In due course, the disciplinary authority entrusted the charge of inquiry to the Additional Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries, Government of Tripura and in the course of said inquiry on behalf of the disciplinary authority, 6 witnesses were examined and 10 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the petitioner, 2 DWs were examined and 2 documents were exhibited. In due course, the disciplinary authority entrusted the charge of inquiry to the Additional Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries, Government of Tripura and in the course of said inquiry on behalf of the disciplinary authority, 6 witnesses were examined and 10 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the petitioner, 2 DWs were examined and 2 documents were exhibited. The Additional Commissioner of Inquiries submitted a detailed and exhausted report holding that the charge drawn against the petitioner and another Sunil Chandra Das, Assistant Headmaster of Irani High School was proved and accordingly, sent the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority (respondent No. 3) in due course, after observing the formalities as required under CCS (CCA) Rules, by order dated 04.01.2005 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) inflicted punishment with following words:- Now, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby orders that the penalty in the shape of reduction to the lower post of Assistant Teacher (Graduate Teacher) of High School (from which Md. Ali was promoted to the post of Dy. Inspector of Schools) in the scale of Rs. 4200-8650/- from his existing time scale of pay of Rs. 6500-12300 is imposed on Md. Ali, Dy. Inspector of Schools, Kailashahar with the direction that on reduction, his Basic Pay will be fixed at the initial stage of Rs. 4200/- in the scale of pay of Rs. 4200 - 8650/- as assigned to the post of Graduate Teacher's and accordingly Md. Ali will earn his yearly increment of pay under normal rules with further direction that Md. Ali will not regain his original seniority assigned to him prior to the imposition of this penalty. This order shall take effect from the date of its issue. (M.S. Bhattacharjee) Director of School Education (Disciplinary Authority) Tripura. 3. Having felt aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Secretary, Government of Tripura, Department of School Education and the appeal was dismissed by order dated 30.06.2005. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner that on mere assumption and presumption, the inquiring authority mechanically submitted a report observing that the charge framed against the petitioner has been proved and taking note of that superficial inquiry report, the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment reducing the petitioner to a lower grade which has been maintained by the Appellate Authority also mechanically without considering the merit of the case. The evidence is scanty to arrive at a conclusion of guilt of the petitioner and hence, it should be interfered and set aside. It is also contended by Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel that the sealed packets in which the question papers were received by the petitioner's school has not been produced before the inquiring authority and copy of the same also not supplied to the petitioner at the time of inquiry and therefore, the petitioner was deprived of taking effective defence in support of his case and hence, the order of punishment is liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Nath has submitted that the petitioner being a teacher of an educational institution committed gross misconduct leaking out the question before examination and the fact has been proved by the oral and documentary evidence on record. The witnesses of the prosecution are all teachers and officials of the School Education Department, who has no animosity with the petitioner in any manner and they have specifically brought on record, in their statement, the fact of alleged misconduct by the petitioner, who un-authorizedly and illegally kept in his custody the question paper of Mathematics and leaked it out for his personal gain. While such allegation has been established in the oral evidence and supporting documentary evidence, this Court while exercising judicial review may not interfere in the punishment inflicted by the authority, which is affirmed by the Appellate Authority. It is also submitted that the sealed packets in which the question papers were received by the school of the petitioner has not been placed before the inquiring authority since it was never collected or produced by the petitioner and the other delinquent officer i.e. the Assistant Headmaster and so, there was no question of depriving the petitioner from taking his defence by way of not supplying the relevant documents. It is an unnecessary plea taken by the petitioner only to camouflage the issue and nothing else. 6. Facts, in short, are that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in Irani High School under Kailashahar School Inspectorate, North Tripura District and the other delinquent Sunil Chandra Das was the Assistant Headmaster of the said school in the year 1997. 6. Facts, in short, are that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Teacher in Irani High School under Kailashahar School Inspectorate, North Tripura District and the other delinquent Sunil Chandra Das was the Assistant Headmaster of the said school in the year 1997. Questions for Madhyamik Test Examination of the year 1997 was prepared by Tripura Non-Gazetted Teachers' Association (for short, 'TNGTA') and Ramkrishna Sikshna Pratisthan, Kailashahar was the distributor of the question papers to different schools of Kailashahar Sub-Division. Jagadish Ghosh (P.W. 6), Assistant Teacher of Ramkrishna Sikshna Pratisthan, Kailashahar was the in-charge to distribute the sealed packets of the question papers to the authorized persons of different schools. It is the case of the disciplinary authority that on 01.12.1997, the petitioner Md. Masaddar Ali received the packet of question papers of all subjects for Irani High School and kept it in his custody un-authorizedly till 03.12.1997 without taking any effort to hand it over to the appropriate authority i.e. the Assistant Headmaster of Irani High School, the other delinquent officer Sunil Chandra Das. On 08.12.1997 before commencement of Mathematics examination of the Madhyamik Test, the question paper of Mathematics were leaked out and some people of the locality brought it to the notice of the Headmaster, Ramkrishna Sikshna Pratisthan (P.W. 4) and the Headmaster of Kailashahar Girls' Secondary School (P.W. 5) and they compared the leaked out question paper with the original question paper in the presence of the members of the examination committee and found that the copy of the question paper leaked out and the original question paper were substantially same and the fact was brought to the notice to the Dy. Director of Education, North Tripura and an FIR was also lodged to the O.C., Kailashahar P.S. for taking necessary action. The matter was immediately inquired by the Assistant Inspector of School, Md. Suruk Ali (P.W. 3) and Sri Jagadish Chandra Ghosh (P.W. 6), Assistant Teacher of Ramkrishna Sikshna Pratisthan (in-charge of question papers) and at the time of inquiry, they found that Md. Masaddar Ali, the petitioner was absent from his duties. The matter was immediately inquired by the Assistant Inspector of School, Md. Suruk Ali (P.W. 3) and Sri Jagadish Chandra Ghosh (P.W. 6), Assistant Teacher of Ramkrishna Sikshna Pratisthan (in-charge of question papers) and at the time of inquiry, they found that Md. Masaddar Ali, the petitioner was absent from his duties. The petitioner while received the question papers on 01.12.1997, kept it in his custody till 03.12.1997 without handing it over to the Assistant Headmaster of that school and it was also found that question papers for the examination of history and geography which was supposed to be held on 09.12.1998 were also lying open and the procedure of opening, the packets were not followed by the petitioner and the other delinquent. They accordingly submitted a report regarding irregularities found and suspected that the Mathematics question paper were leaked out by the petitioner and the other delinquent facilitated the petitioner in leaking out the question by not taking appropriate care. It is further case of the disciplinary authority that Inspector of School, Kailashahar also made an inquiry into the matter on 10.12.1997 and submitted report that the petitioner Masaddar Ali was absent from his duties un-authorizedly with effect from 08.12.1997 i.e. when the matter of leaking out of the question papers disclosed and thus, no information could be collected from him. It is the case of the disciplinary authority that Masaddar Ali, the petitioner kept the question in his personal custody from 01.12.1997 to 03.12.1997 and leaked out the question of Mathematics before examination for his personal gain. 7. The case of the delinquent i.e. the petitioner is that there was no leakage of Mathematics question from the custody of the petitioner. There was an examination committee of Irani High School consisting of 5 members and the petitioner was the convener of that committee. The sealed packet of the question paper was opened in the presence of all the members and documents thereof was kept in the school. The examination of Mathematics paper was duly held in Irani High School without any problem. In the year 1997, Test Examination question paper was leaked out was Amarpur Sub-Division and there was no leaking out of the question paper from the end of the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely entangled and wrongly punished in the disciplinary proceeding. 8. The examination of Mathematics paper was duly held in Irani High School without any problem. In the year 1997, Test Examination question paper was leaked out was Amarpur Sub-Division and there was no leaking out of the question paper from the end of the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely entangled and wrongly punished in the disciplinary proceeding. 8. This Court is not required to sit as an Appellate Authority and is not required to re-appreciate the evidence with meticulous scrutiny as it done in criminal cases. This Court is also not required to substitute its own view over the view/decision taken by the disciplinary authority unless it is found that the decision taken by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence or that the failure of justice has occasion because of any other reasons apparent on the face of the record. 9. The power of judicial review of the decision of a domestic Tribunal is very limited. Such judicial review is possible only when the principles of natural justice has been violated i.e. the opportunities, which ought to be given to the delinquent, as per Rules were not given or that the decision of the domestic Tribunal was based on no evidence and that the punishment inflicted is shocking to the judicial conscience. If there is no glaring violation of the principles of natural justice and there is some evidence to support the decision, taken by the disciplinary authority, the Court cannot sit as a matter of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence and to substitute the finding of the disciplinary authority with its own finding. 10. In the case at hand referring to the report of the inquiring authority, learned counsel, Mr. Banerjee submitted that there is a clear observation by the inquiring authority regarding non-production of the packets in which the Irani School received the question papers from P.W. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that non-supply of copy of those packets has caused miscarriage of justice. I find no force in the submission made by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner in this score. While those packets of the question papers were not at all brought on record and relied by the disciplinary authority, I do not understand how the petitioner was deprived of reasonable opportunity. I find no force in the submission made by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner in this score. While those packets of the question papers were not at all brought on record and relied by the disciplinary authority, I do not understand how the petitioner was deprived of reasonable opportunity. Those packets were lying with Irani School and admittedly, the torn packets were not placed in evidence by the disciplinary authority. The inquiring authority held the charges proved based on the oral evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the documents marked as Exbt. 9 and 10. He found no reason to disbelieve the case of the disciplinary authority. The oral statement of those witnesses could not be broken in the witness box by the defence. So, while the oral evidence is found to be worthy of credence, I find no reason at all to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority in respect of punishment of the petitioner on the impugned charge of misconduct. 11. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 categorically stated about the leaking out of question paper brought to their notice i.e. the Headmaster of Ramkrishna Sikshna Pratisthan and Girls' High School by one Bidhan Choudhury and others of the locality. Admittedly, that Bidhan Choudhury or any other people, who brought the leaked out question to the notice of those witnesses, have been examined by the disciplinary authority. Copy of the leaked out question paper also not produced. But the inquiring authority found no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case in respect of the fact of leaking out of Mathematics question paper for which the entire examination was cancelled. The inquiring authority clearly arrived at a finding that the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses could not be broken rather they are found to be worthy of credence and defence evidence was not enough to discard the evidence of prosecution and therefore, the inquiring authority arrived at a conclusion of guilt of the petitioner in respect of the charge. The inquiring authority clearly arrived at a finding that the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses could not be broken rather they are found to be worthy of credence and defence evidence was not enough to discard the evidence of prosecution and therefore, the inquiring authority arrived at a conclusion of guilt of the petitioner in respect of the charge. I find no reason at all, sitting in writ jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority which is based on some evidence on record and that evidence may not be sufficient to prove a criminal charge against the petitioner, but in my considered opinion, it is enough to arrive at a conclusion of guilt of the charge framed against the petitioner. 12. We may gainfully refer here the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723 wherein the Apex Court held-- 21. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or; where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. 13. Regarding the quantum of punishment, I am of considered opinion that it is not disproportionate to the offence alleged to have committed by the petitioner. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Bhatia vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4045 has held that the power of Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment is extremely restricted and only when the relevant factors have not been considered the Court can direct reconsideration or in an appropriate case to certain litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded; and, that can only be in very rare cases. 15. In the case at hand, I find nothing to disturb the finding of the disciplinary authority in respect of the quantum of punishment and in my view, it commensurate to the gravity of the offence. The writ petition, accordingly, stands dismissed and in the circumstances without cost.