Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J. The petitioner, who was an Accounts Officer-II in the Aviation Fuel Station of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited1 at Bareilly, has sought the quashing of the order dated 24 December 2013 passed by the Deputy General Manager (Aviation), NRO & CDA by which he has been dismissed from service. A charge-sheet dated 7 August 2012 was served upon the petitioner. It contained as many as ten charges which are as follows:- "(i) That on 16.06.12 instructions were issued by APTM, Bareilly AFS and displayed on notice board ordering all employees to follow office timings and to use ACS card while entering or leaving office premises. You failed to follow instructions and tampered with the Attendance records from 18.06.12 to 23.06.12 by erasing, using white fluid, the cross mark put against your name and signing the attendance register despite not reporting on time. (ii) That despite instruction advising all employees to use the ACS card while entering or leaving office premises you failed to use the ACS card on a regular basis. You did not use the ACS card on 21.06.12 and 25.06.12 while entering the AFS premises and on 18.06.12, 19.06.12, 23.06.12 and 26.06.12 you did not use the ACS card while exiting office premises. (iii) That you were counselled by Sri S.L. Meena, APTM, Bareilly AFS to report to office on time, however, you replied, 'I will come to office as per my timing and do whatever you want to do'. (iv) That instructions were again issued on 23.06.12 advising all employees to adhere to office timings and use ACS card while entering/exiting office premises and to not stay beyond office timings except when so advised by APTM, Bareilly AFS or Shift in charge. That despite this you left office premises at 1845 hours on 23.06.12 and reported on 0950 hours, in both instances much beyond designated timings. (v) That you were called to the APTM's cabin on 25.06.12 but you did not report there. (vi) That at around 1710 hours on 25.06.12 APTM, Bareilly AFS approached you to hand over the letter reference Avn/Bly/29209 dated 25.06.12 seeking your explanation for tampering with attendance records and advising you that 2 casual leave had been deducted from your account for 6 days of late coming, you refused to receive the said letter. (vi) That at around 1710 hours on 25.06.12 APTM, Bareilly AFS approached you to hand over the letter reference Avn/Bly/29209 dated 25.06.12 seeking your explanation for tampering with attendance records and advising you that 2 casual leave had been deducted from your account for 6 days of late coming, you refused to receive the said letter. (vii) That you asked the APTM, Bareilly AFS to show where are the timings notified in writing. On being told by the APTM, Bareilly AFS that the timings are displayed on the notice board and any doubts can be clarified by seniors you started using abusive language- ........................... (viii) That on 26.06.12 APTM, Bareilly AFS again called you to his room but you refused to come. (ix) That APTM, Bareilly AFS went to your seat along with security guards and Ms. Srishti Rjihwani, Aviation Officer, Bareilly AFS and handed over the explanation letter dated 25.06.12 asking you to submit reply by 27.06.12. (x) That you did not submit reply to the same and letter reference Avn/Bly/29209 dated 31.07.12 has been issued to you seeking immediate response which you have received on 01.08.12. No reply has been received against the same." In view of the aforesaid charges, it was stated in the charge-sheet that the petitioner had allegedly committed the following acts of misconduct :- "(19.1.1) Wilful insubordination or disobedience whether or not in combination with another, of any lawful and reasonable order or a superior. (19.1.7) Habitual late attendance. (19.1.9) Riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour while on duty or any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the Establishment/Unit. (19.1.10) Neglect or Negligence of duty. (19.1.11) Breach of any duty notified rules or instructions for the running of any portion of the Establishment/Unit. (19.1.25) Malicious or false allegations against the officers of the Corporation. (19.1.28) Unauthorised presence of a workman in certain areas in the Establishment/Unit so notified by the Management, beyond his normal working hours." The petitioner was asked to submit a written explanation which he submitted on 27 August 2012. The enquiry was conducted by the DGM (M & I) and E.O. and the enquiry report dated 18 May 2013 was submitted. All the charges were found to be proved. A communication dated 26 August 2013 was then sent by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report. The enquiry was conducted by the DGM (M & I) and E.O. and the enquiry report dated 18 May 2013 was submitted. All the charges were found to be proved. A communication dated 26 August 2013 was then sent by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report. Opportunity was granted to the petitioner to make a written representation against the enquiry report within ten days. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 16 September 2013. The Disciplinary Authority examined the representation. It found the charges were grave and serious in nature. It, therefore, proposed to impose the punishment of dismissal. The petitioner was, however, called up to submit his explanation within three days as to why the aforesaid punishment may not be imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 21 November 2013. It is on a consideration of the aforesaid material on record that the Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 24 December 2013 imposing punishment of dismissal. The relevant portion of the order is as follows:- "I have given my considered thought to the above observation of the Enquiry Officer and found that a perusal of the 10 charges levelled against you makes it evident that the same were based on, and substantially related to, documentary evidence, inter-alia, in the form of Office orders dated 16.06.2012, 18.06.2012, 23.06.2012. ACS statement for the period from 14.06.2012 to 26.06.2012, attendance register for the month of June 2012, job allocation of the Officers, your own explanation dated 2506.2012 and 31.07.2012. These documentary evidences were duly proved in the evidence of the Management by PW-1 namely Shri S.L. Meena. Besides this, PW-1 made categorical statements in support of all the charges, which clearly pointed towards your misconduct. Therefor, in the light of the fact that the documentary evidences corroborated by the testimony of PW-1, were sufficient enough to prove the charges, there was no requirement that the charges could only be proved by an eye witness. Hence the said objection is totally misconceived. I have considered your past record and found that you have been given repeated opportunities in the past to reform and improve your behaviour. However, you have continued with similar behaviour and have not shown any improvement in your behaviour. Hence the said objection is totally misconceived. I have considered your past record and found that you have been given repeated opportunities in the past to reform and improve your behaviour. However, you have continued with similar behaviour and have not shown any improvement in your behaviour. You have been previously served two charge sheets for riotous, indecent and disorderly behaviour while on duty and the misconduct has been proved against you. You had been awarded penalties of reduction of basic pay by one stage in one case and reduction of basic pay by three stages in the second case. You were even placed under suspension. You have turned out to be a chronic offender who shows no sign of remorse. Rather you continue to assert that you are not at fault. In your representations, instead of trying to offer an explanation for your conduct and charges alleged and proved against you, you rather seek to make counter allegations against your fellow employees at Bareilly AFS. Accordingly, I have once again thoroughly considered the material on record, the representations dated 16.09.2013 and 21.11.2013 submitted by you as well as your contentions raised during personal hearings on 26.11.2013 and 27.11.2013, I find that you have not brought out any new point or extenuating circumstances which may warrant reconsideration of the penalty of "Dismissal" proposed vide Show Cause Notice dated 11.11.2013. I find that the charges which have duly been proved against you are of grave and serious nature and have thus decided to uphold and inflict the penalty of "Dismissal" upon you. You are further informed that as per the provisions contained in Rule No.12.6 of the P & A manual for workmen, you can prefer an appeal, if you so desire, through proper channel, within 90 days." The petitioner preferred an Appeal which has been dismissed by the order dated 27 August 2014 passed by the Executive Officer (Regional Service) N.R. All the points raised in the Appeal have been considered and rejected and the Appellate Authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well as the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges have been found to be proved on the basis of conjectures and surmises without even giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges have been found to be proved on the basis of conjectures and surmises without even giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that major penalty of dismissal was not warranted and that the Appeal has been dismissed without taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner. Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and Sri Ishan Shishu, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India have opposed the petition and have submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved after due and proper enquiry in which ample opportunity was provided to the petitioner and it cannot be said that the findings have been recorded on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation that in view of the gravity of the charges, the punishment of dismissal was justified and that the Appellate Authority, after meticulously examining the points raised by the petitioner, found no force in them and hence found no force in the Appeal. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. On a careful perusal of the enquiry report, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry report is based on conjectures and surmises. The Enquiry Officer has analyzed the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence that was led during the course of the enquiry and has thereafter given his findings that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Adequate opportunity was also provided to the petitioner to file a representation against the enquiry report as also to the proposed punishment and all the submissions raised by the petitioner have been duly examined by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing punishment of dismissal from service. The charges levelled against the petitioner, as would be apparent from a bare perusal of the charge-sheet, are very serious in nature. They range from not following administrative instructions to using abusive language against the superior officers. We have deliberately omitted to reproduce them while reproducing the charges in the earlier part of the judgment. The charges levelled against the petitioner, as would be apparent from a bare perusal of the charge-sheet, are very serious in nature. They range from not following administrative instructions to using abusive language against the superior officers. We have deliberately omitted to reproduce them while reproducing the charges in the earlier part of the judgment. It is also not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed without considering the points raised by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority has considered the points raised by the petitioner and the documentary as well as oral evidences led in the enquiry. It has found that the petitioner had in fact used white fluid on the attendance register and signed on the same. It has also been found that the petitioner has constantly reported late for duty despite being repeatedly warned. The Appellate Authority has also not accepted the version of the petitioner that S.L. Meena manipulated the documents. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of judicial review to correct errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest or violation of principles of natural justice. This is what has been observed by the Supreme Court in Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank & Ors.2 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the gravity of the charges cannot also be accepted. The scope for interfering with the quantum of punishment is very limited. In the present case the Court is more than satisfied, in view of the seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner, that the order of dismissal does not deserve to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Date:15.10.2014 SK (Dilip Gupta, J.) (Dr. Satish Chandra, J.) ——————