JUDGMENT SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Seeking review of order dated 22.09.2008 in W.P. (L) No. 6175 of 2002 and W.P. (L) No. 6566 of 2002, the present Civil Review No. 32 of 2009 has been preferred by the Management of Bokaro Steel Plant of M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro Steel City. 2. The petitioner Management of Bokaro Steel Plant of M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, challenged award dated 25.02.2002 in Ref. Case No. 14 of 1998 whereby the Labour Court modified the punishment awarded to the respondent workman against whom criminal case was instituted for theft of diesel. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the concession recorded by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the impugned order dated 22.09.2002 is not correct and no such concession was given by the counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of the fact that a criminal case for theft of diesel was registered against the respondent workman, no concession could have been extended. It is further submitted that in a properly constituted departmental enquiry, the charge against the petitioner has been found proved and therefore, the Labour Court could not have interfered with the quantum of punishment. 4. Per contra, Mr. B.B. Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted that, the criminal case registered against the respondent workman ended in acquittal of the workman. The enquiry report dated 07.04.1986 points out that the witnesses confirmed that the level of balance of diesel in the tank of BSL Dozer could not be ascertained. Even the witnesses examined by the department alleged theft of only 40 litres of diesel. Other witnesses have admitted that, they got the knowledge of the theft from others and they were not present at the place of occurrence. The learned counsel for the respondent workman submitted that the enquiry report concluded that the case of theft is proved by circumstantial evidence which is definitely a serious error committed by the enquiry officer. In the garb of review petition, the petitioner cannot challenge the award on merits. 5. The petitioner has sought review of the impugned order dated 22.09.2008 only on the ground that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of a concession by the counsel for the petitioner, a fact which is not correct and no such concession was given by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. 5. The petitioner has sought review of the impugned order dated 22.09.2008 only on the ground that the impugned order has been passed on the basis of a concession by the counsel for the petitioner, a fact which is not correct and no such concession was given by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. From the materials on record, I find that the following charge was framed against the respondent workman: “It has been reported that on 23.11.1985, when you were deployed on Dozer No. 22, you were apprehended alongwith one Sri Kamlesh Singh, Driver of a private Truck, bearing Regn. No. 7851 by the CISF personnel in Coal Handling Plant area of T.P.P. at about 19.00 hrs., while you were siphoning out the diesel with the help of hosepipe from the above Dozer and filling it in the said Private Truck. This is an act of misconduct on your part.” 7. A perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that the quantity of alleged theft of diesel is not mentioned in the charge-sheet. The measurement of diesel in Dozer No. 22 before the alleged theft has not been brought on record. The enquiry report discloses that no measurement of diesel in the tanker was taken. The charge of theft of diesel framed against the respondent-workman is thus, vague. Moreover, in a case of this nature, the charge of theft cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence. The respondent-workman served the petitioner-company for about 28 years and his conduct was appreciated by the Management. It is also an admitted fact that the G.R. Case No. 1129B/85 has ended in acquittal of the respondent-workman vide order dated 02.12.1989. In these facts, though the award dated 25.02.2002 may not sustain the scrutiny of law in so far as, the interference with quantum of punishment is concerned, however, in view of the facts noticed hereinabove, I am of the opinion that award dated 25.02.2002 in Ref. Case No. 14 of 1998 does not call for interference by this Court and the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 8. In Nagendra Nath Bora and Another vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others, AIR 1958 SC 398 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, it is not every error either of law or fact which can be corrected by a superior Court. 8. In Nagendra Nath Bora and Another vs. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and Others, AIR 1958 SC 398 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, it is not every error either of law or fact which can be corrected by a superior Court. Mere formal or technical error even though of law, would not be sufficient to attract the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court of Certiorari. 9. In view of the finding recorded by me whether the counsel for the petitioner gave any concession or not, need not be gone into. 10. In the result, the Review petition stands dismissed.