Judgment 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.4193 of 2003. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.17335 of 2007. 2. The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant in the Panchayat Union Office at Kannangudy. While so, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him alleging that while working as Junior Assistant in the year 1979 in the aforesaid Panchayat Union, he connived with the Rural Welfare Officer of the said Panchayat Union and also with Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and raised a loan of Rs.3,500/-in the name of one Perumal, Kadambur for purchase of pair of plough bulls and cart under Integrated Rural Development Scheme. 3. The Commissioner for disciplinary proceedings held that the charge was proved. Based on the same, he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect vide G.O.(2D)No.24 Rural Development Department, dated 06.02.2002. Challenging the said Government Order, the petitioner has filed this Original Application. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner, being a Government servant is not barred from acting as a guarantor in a loan transaction and for that disciplinary action cannot be initiated against him. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the three officials namely, the Junior Assistant, viz., the petitioner, the Rural Welfare Officer and the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon connived together in raising a loan of Rs.3,500/- in the name of Perumal for the purchase of bulls and cart. Based on the evidence of the Carpenter as well as the said Perumal, the Commissioner for disciplinary proceedings came to the conclusion that the charge was held proved. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot act as an Appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 8. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be attractive at the first instance, but on a deeper scrutiny, it deserves to be rejected. Disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was not on the ground that he stood as a guarantor in a loan transaction. On the other hand, the allegation was that the petitioner connived with two other officials in the matter of sanction of loan with respect to bulls and cart. Disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was not on the ground that he stood as a guarantor in a loan transaction. On the other hand, the allegation was that the petitioner connived with two other officials in the matter of sanction of loan with respect to bulls and cart. 9. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the following excerpts from the impugned Government Order dated 06.02.2002:- "..P.W.3 has denied having purchased or having received any work bulls. ..... In the purchase receipt in respect of the bullock cart written in the handwriting of Accused Officer-2 it is shown as if the cart was purchased from P.W.1. But PW.1 has categorically denied having sold such a cart. PW.3 the loanee has also denied having purchased or received any cart as shown in the Purchase Receipt. ... Therefore the loan must have been raised by the Accused Officers in connivance with each other by creating false purchase receipts and verification Certificate..." 10. However, the learned counsel has sought to re-appreciate the evidence and to come to a different conclusion from that of the disciplinary authority, which is not permissible under the writ jurisdiction. 11. For all the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.