Ujjal Bhuyan, J.:-- Subject matter of both the writ petitions being inter related, those were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioner is an Officer serving in Oil India Limited (OIL). While he was serving in Grade-B he claimed promotion to Grade - C in the year 2001. Because of pendency of a vigilance enquiry sealed cover procedure was adopted in case of the petitioner. Thereafter, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner where after, penalty of stoppage of one increment was imposed on the petitioner. It may be mentioned that during that stage 2 (two) writ petitions came to be filed before this Court being WP(C) No.4077 of 2001 and WP(C) No.2456 of 2006. Both the cases were disposed of by a common order dated 15.05.2007. This Court held that since punishment was imposed on the petitioner the sealed cover proceeding could not be given effect to and the petitioner cannot claim promotion from Grade-B to Grade-C in the promotion exercise, which was earned out in the year 2001. However, from the affidavit filed by OIL, this Court observed that it was open to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the next DPC. On a submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the 2 (two) writ petitions were disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion from Grade-B to Grade-C in the next DPC in the normal course provided the petitioner cooperated with the selection process in terms of the relevant rules and regulations. Petitioner was also given opportunity to submit representation before the respondents highlighting his grievance. 3. According to the petitioner, he was thereafter, asked to appear in the written test and viva-voce by the DPC on 10.12.2007 for promotion to Grade-C. But immediately thereafter, memorandum dated 29.11.2007 was issued under Rule 25 of the OIL Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1982, as amended, asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why a departmental enquiry should not be conducted against him on the charges which were framed. As per the statement of articles of charge appended to the memorandum dated 29,11.2007, the basic charge against the petitioner was acquiring property and wealth disproportionate to his known source of income during the period from 01.03.1995 to 31.03.2001. As per the statement of articles of charge appended to the memorandum dated 29,11.2007, the basic charge against the petitioner was acquiring property and wealth disproportionate to his known source of income during the period from 01.03.1995 to 31.03.2001. In fact, the assets and property, which were allegedly acquired disproportionate to his known source of income was quantified at Rs.8,54,887.00. 4. It was at that stage that petitioner moved this Court by filing WP(C) No.1929 of 2010, challenging the legality and validity of the memorandum dated 29.11.2007. 5. Contention of the petitioner is that it was a deliberate act on the part of the respondents to deprive the petitioner of his due promotion. Allegations pertain to the period from 1995 to 2001 which was prior in point of time to the promotion exercise carried out in the year 2001 and the earlier departmental proceeding. Therefore, resurrection of such stale allegations is not justified and appears to be motivated. Allegation of mala fide and improper exercise of power has been levelled against the respondents. 6. Respondents have filed a common affidavit. While denying the allegation of mala fide and improper exercise of power, it is stated that in the promotion exercise carried out in the year 2001, petitioner's case was put in sealed cover in view of the departmental proceeding initiated against him. Charge memo was issued on 29.07.2002 under Clauses-5.4 and 5.20 of the Conduct Rules, 1982 for violation of Rules 13(1), 13(2) as well as Rule 16 (3) of the Conduct Rules. Following a domestic enquiry, wherein, the charges of misconduct were proved, the disciplinary authority imposed minor penalty on the petitioner on 05.11.2003, withholding his promotion to the next higher grade for a period up to 31.12.2005. In view of the penalty imposed, the sealed cover procedure became in fructuous and was no longer valid. It is further stated that in terms of the order of this Court selection was conducted again for promotion to Grade-C. In the meanwhile, the impugned charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner for which his selection was kept in sealed cover again. The departmental proceeding that was drawn up against the petitioner on the charge of amassing disproportionate property and wealth ended in imposition of major penalty on the petitioner by his reduction to a lower grade vide order dated 05.05.2010. The departmental proceeding that was drawn up against the petitioner on the charge of amassing disproportionate property and wealth ended in imposition of major penalty on the petitioner by his reduction to a lower grade vide order dated 05.05.2010. It is this order dated 05.05.2010, which has been put to challenge by the petitioner in the subsequent writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No.3379 of 2010. 7. I have heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases and Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Khound, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been subjected to unfair treatment by the respondents. He was due for promotion from Grade-B to Grade-C in the year 2001, but to deny him promotion respondents initiated a departmental proceeding and imposed upon him a minor penalty. On orders of this Court to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for promotion to Grade-C, the DPC was once again constituted in the year 2007. This time also while the case of the petitioner was taken up for consideration the impugned show-cause notice was issued on the petitioner on the charge of accumulating disproportionate income and property for which his promotion could not be affected. Thereafter, the impugned penalty has been imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that going by the sequence of events it is clearly evident that the respondents had adopted a hostile attitude towards the petitioner and to nullify his claim for promotion they had taken recourse to departmental proceeding and in fact, have brought him down to the lower Grade-A, when he was claiming promotion from Grade-B to Grade-C, which is most unfair and unjust and requires interference by this Court. The impugned show-cause notice which led to imposition of the impugned penalty relates to events which date back to the period from 1995 to 2001 which were prior to the first departmental proceeding. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned show-cause notice was clearly an afterthought to deny promotion to the petitioner. 9. Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, submits that in so far the earlier departmental proceeding is concerned, in the absence of any challenge, the same has attained finality. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned show-cause notice was clearly an afterthought to deny promotion to the petitioner. 9. Mr. S.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, submits that in so far the earlier departmental proceeding is concerned, in the absence of any challenge, the same has attained finality. The disciplinary authority had imposed the minor penalty of stoppage of promotion for a particular period for which the sealed cover procedure adopted for the promotion exercise in 2001 became ineffective. Following a vigilance enquiry a fresh departmental proceeding had to be initiated against the petitioner, which led to imposition of the penalty of reversion to a lower grade, i.e., Grade-A. It cannot be said that the respondents had resorted to the second departmental proceeding to deny promotion to the petitioner. Both the departmental proceedings are different being based on distinct and different charges. All procedural safeguards were afforded to the petitioner and the departmental proceeding was conducted in accordance with the Conduct Rules and complying with the laid down procedure and rules of natural justice. Following a duly conducted disciplinary enquiry the charges framed against the petitioner stood proved. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and his response was, thereafter, considered by the disciplinary authority along with the record of the enquiry. Thereafter, penalty of reversion to lower grade was imposed. Considering the seriousness of the charge, the penalty imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate or shocking to the judicial conscience. Therefore, no case of interference is made out. 10. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 11. Claim of promotion to a higher grade is one aspect and conduct of departmental proceeding for enforcement of discipline in an organization is another matter. As is well understood in service jurisprudence though an employee has the fundamental right to a consideration for promotion he cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. Consideration for promotion is dependent upon various factors. One such factor is the conduct of the employee which would be judged by the disciplinary authority through a departmental proceeding if the conduct or rather misconduct warrants holding of such departmental proceeding. From the record, it is seen that petitioner was subjected to 2 (two) departmental proceedings on different charges. Consideration for promotion is dependent upon various factors. One such factor is the conduct of the employee which would be judged by the disciplinary authority through a departmental proceeding if the conduct or rather misconduct warrants holding of such departmental proceeding. From the record, it is seen that petitioner was subjected to 2 (two) departmental proceedings on different charges. The first departmental proceeding is not the subject matter of challenge in the 2 (two) writ petitions. It was initiated vide the show-cause memo dated 29.07.2002. The charge against the petitioner was as follows: - "That the said Shri Niresh Ranjan Deb presently posted as Civil Engineer in Civil Engineering Department, has been working in Oil India Limited since 1976. The said Shri Deb while working in Civil Engineering department in Oil India Limited, Duliajan is alleged to have furnished false information in his property return for the period from 20.12.76 to 31.03.2000 and failed to report to the competent authority every transaction concerning the movable property owned or held by him in his own name in his aforesaid property return. It is also alleged that the said Shri Deb is involved in the business of M/s M.N. Enterprise and thus he is alleged to have engaged directly or indirectly in business without the previous sanction of the Competent Authority and committed an act subversive of discipline. 2. That the said Shri N.R. Deb thereby is alleged to have committed misconduct under Clauses 5.4 and 5.20 of Rule 5 and contravened the provisions of Clauses 13.1 and 13.2 of Rule 13 and Clause 16.3 of Rule 16 of OIL Executive's Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1982 (amended)." 12. The said departmental proceeding ended with imposition of minor penalty of stoppage of promotion for a particular period. This departmental proceeding was conducted after the promotion exercise was carried out in the year 2001, when the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion from Grade-B to Grade-C, but because of the pendency of the vigilance enquiry sealed cover procedure was adopted. Following imposition of penalty, sealed cover procedure became in fructuous as no promotion could have been granted to the petitioner in view of the penalty imposed. This was taken note of by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Following imposition of penalty, sealed cover procedure became in fructuous as no promotion could have been granted to the petitioner in view of the penalty imposed. This was taken note of by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. However, considering the claim of the petitioner it was observed that the petitioner's claim for promotion could be considered de novo in a subsequent promotional exercise by the DPC. 13. When the second promotion exercise was carried out in the year 2007, the impugned memorandum dated 29.11.2007 was issued charging the petitioner with acquiring disproportionate wealth. Again, case of the petitioner for promotion was put in sealed cover. The charge against the petitioner in the second departmental proceeding initiated vide the show-cause memo dated 29,11.2007 was as under:- "Shri Niresh Ranjan Deb (S/c-5766) while posted & functioning as Junior Engineer, Civil Engineering department of Oil India Limited, Duliajan was allegedly involved in malpractices in the discharge of his official duties and resultantly amassed assets/property/wealth in an unlawful and corrupt manner, which is disproportionate to his known sources of his income including the family. That on a special scrutiny of property returns of said Shri N.R. Deb, it is revealed that during the period from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.2000 he acquired/amassed assets/property/wealth amounting to Rs.34,81,810.00 against his savings of Rs.26,26,923/-(Total Income & other receipts = Rs. 42,40,338/- less total expenditure = Rs. 16,13,4157-) in an unlawful & corrupt manner reflecting dishonesty in the discharge of his functions. Therefore, the assets/property/wealth acquired by Shri Deb & his family during the period from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.2000 was found disproportionate to his known sources of income to the extent of Rs.8,54,887/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Seven Only) which comes out to be 20.16 % of the total income during the corresponding period. By the above acts of omissions and commissions, it is thus, alleged that Shri N.R. Deb, Civil Engineer, (S/C 5766), failed to maintain absolute integrity and possessed/acquired assets/property/wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income and thus, contravened sub-rule 4.1.1 of Rule 4 and committed misconduct under Sub-rule 5.1 and 5.3 of Rule 5 of OIL EXECUTIVES' CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE & APPEAL RULES, 1982 (as amended)." 14. This departmental proceeding ended in the imposition of the major penalty of reversion to a lower grade, i.e., Grade-A. Thus, the charges in both the departmental proceedings were distinct and different. This departmental proceeding ended in the imposition of the major penalty of reversion to a lower grade, i.e., Grade-A. Thus, the charges in both the departmental proceedings were distinct and different. It cannot be said that the second departmental proceeding was based on the same or similar set of charges which were gone into in the first departmental proceeding. In the present proceeding, Court is primarily concerned with the validity of the second departmental proceeding, which was initiated pursuant to the memorandum dated 29.11.2007. From the materials placed on record, this Court is unable to find any procedural infirmity or violation of the principles of natural justice to justify interference with the departmental proceeding. As is well recognized, judicial review in matters of departmental proceeding is limited to violation of the principles of natural justice, perversity, errors apparent on the face of the record and acting in excess of or without jurisdiction. In addition, if the penalty imposed shocks the conscience of the Court, inasmuch as, if it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct established, the Court can also intervene while exercising the power of judicial review. But while doing so, a writ Court would not embark upon an exercise to re-appreciate the evidence adduced and examined in the course of the departmental proceeding. Sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence is not a ground for invoking the power of judicial review, [n other words, the writ Court does not act as the appellate Court. 15. Having noticed the above, a perusal of the departmental proceeding would go to show that the petitioner was provided due procedural safeguards, which he had availed both within the enquiry and before and after the enquiry. Considering that the charge of acquiring disproportionate wealth has been proved, the penalty of reversion to a lower grade cannot be said to be disproportionate. In fact, petitioner may consider himself lucky that no criminal proceeding has been initiated against him on such a proven charge. 16. In the course of hearing, it was pointed out that petitioner has again been promoted to Grade-B, w.e.f. 01.01.2014. 17. Mr. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the plea of mala fide against the respondents while dealing with the petitioner. The Apex Court in a catena of judgments has explained that malice, which is a state of mind, is easier to allege but difficult to prove. 17. Mr. Chutia, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the plea of mala fide against the respondents while dealing with the petitioner. The Apex Court in a catena of judgments has explained that malice, which is a state of mind, is easier to allege but difficult to prove. From the materials on record, Court is unable to discern any nexus between initiation of the departmental proceedings and denial of promotion to the petitioner. A mere coincidence cannot be cited as an incidence of malicious behavior on the part of the respondents. Neither malice in fact nor malice in law is discernible from pleadings or from the documents on record. In such circumstances, Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the writ petitioner. Both the writ petitions are found to be devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. 18. Parties are left to bear their own costs. --