Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,J. This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 2 September 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench at Allahabad1 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been dismissed. The petitioner was a Ticket Collector at Kanpur Railway Station. A Vigilance Party was deputed to supervise the conduct of the petitioner as a Ticket Collector and it was found that on 7 August 2008, the petitioner extorted Rs.100/- at the exit gate from a villager who was a passenger. A charge-sheet dated 25 March 2009 was issued to the petitioner and after due enquiry, punishment of reduction in pay was imposed upon the petitioner by order dated 25 November 2009. The Appeal and the Revision filed by the petitioner to assail this punishment order were dismissed by orders dated 11 March 2010 and 2 June 2010. The Tribunal has also dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal has found that the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules and it did not suffer from any infirmity. The Tribunal also found that the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority had examined the points raised by the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty upon the petitioner on the basis of conjectures and surmises and in any case, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is not possible to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 injustice 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 It cannot be said that the punishment is based on conjectures and surmises. A detailed enquiry was held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules. This is what has been observed by the Supreme Court in Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank & Ors.2 It cannot be said that the punishment is based on conjectures and surmises. A detailed enquiry was held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Rules. The charge against the petitioner was that even though the passenger who was a villager had a proper ticket, he was illegally detained by the petitioner and allowed to go only after he paid Rs.100/- to the petitioner. The disagreement note was served upon the petitioner and he was given adequate opportunity to file a reply. The Tribunal also taken all these factors in consideration. It cannot, therefore, be said that there has been any procedural error leading to manifest injustice so as to call for any interference. The scope for interfering with the quantum of punishment by Courts is very limited. It was found in the enquiry that the petitioner had taken Rs.100/- from a passenger for letting him go even though he had a valid ticket. This is a serious charge. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges cannot, therefore, be accepted. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Date:26.11.2014 SK (Dilip Gupta, J.) (Dr. Satish Chandra, J.) ——————