JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J - In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.8.2002 (Annexure-10) and order dated 27.2.2004 (Annexure-12). 2. Facts of the case is that the petitioner while working as Assistant at Phulbani Branch Office under the Berhampur Divisional Office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India was proceeded with departmental proceeding for certain irregularities, petitioner has submitted his defence reply before the Enquiry Officer, Enquiry Officer has found the charge proved disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of reduction in basic pay by six stages in terms of Regulation 39(1)(d) of LIC of India(Staff) Regulations, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation, 1960', a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the authority in exercise of power under Regulation 48(2) of the Regulation, 1960 for necessary punishment, the petitioner has given due reply. However, without considering the same order of removal has been passed. 3. Being aggrieved with the said orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the impugned orders on the following grounds: (i) The Enquiry Officer has not appreciated the entire evidence in right prospective; (ii) The disciplinary authority initially has imposed punishment of reduction of basic pay by six stages permanently in the time scale, but subsequently it has been enhanced with punishment of removal from service and as such order of removal is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges; (iii) The Enquiry Officer has not provided adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner since the agent, who is stated to have proved, has not been permitted to be cross-examined by the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party-LIC has submitted that the petitioner being an Assistant has committed gross misconduct which relates to moral turpitude touching upon his integrity in the financial matter of the Corporation and as such the authority after following due procedure laid down in the Regulation, after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing, has inflicted the punishment, although initially lenient view was taken but the reviewing authority in exercise of power conferred under Regulation 48(2) of the Regulation, 1960 has enhanced punishment considering the gravity of nature of charges since it touches integrity of financial matter and as such the Corporation has lost its confidence upon the petitioner in retaining him in service was found to detrimental with interest of the Corporation. He has further submitted that each and every aspect has been assessed by the Enquiry Officer, disciplinary authority and the reviewing authority so this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not reappraise the evidence and disturb the fact finding which has been arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, basing upon which order of punishment has been passed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 6. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Assistant in Phulbani Branch Officer under Berhampur Division of the LIC of India, while he was working there it was found that the petitioner has committed serious financial irregularities by prefixing one or two digits in the Agents? Register of Commission paid to the Agents and Bonus Commission Bills of 52 Agents. For better appreciation, the charge leveled against the petitioner is being reproduced below: "xx from 29.10.1993 to 07.12.98, you in connivance with the Agents had manipulated the FIRST and FIRST YEARS COMMISSION FIGURES by prefixing one or two digits in the Agents? Register of Commission paid to the Agents and Bonus Commission Bills of 52 Agents and an excess payment of bonus commission to the tune of Rs. 3,46,200/- (Three lac forty six thousand - two hundred) only was made to 52 Agents causing a financial loss to the Corporation to the extent of Rs. 3,46,200/- And thereby you have displayed gross negligence in discharge of your duty and have acted in a manner prejudicial to good conduct and detrimental to the interest of the office, thereby violating the provisions of Regulations 21, 24 read with Regulation 39(1) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960." 7. After serving the memorandum of charge, regular departmental enquiry was initiated and the petitioner has been given opportunity to defend himself, thereafter the Enquiry Officer has found the charges proved basing upon the record having been produced by the presenting officer. From perusal of the finding part where the Enquiry Officer has found the charge proved, petitioner has accepted the handwritings and signatures put in the concerned Ledger. On the basis of material evidence, handwriting identification by the petitioner, Enquiry officer has come to finding regarding proof of the charge. From perusal of the finding part where the Enquiry Officer has found the charge proved, petitioner has accepted the handwritings and signatures put in the concerned Ledger. On the basis of material evidence, handwriting identification by the petitioner, Enquiry officer has come to finding regarding proof of the charge. After giving the finding the same has been forwarded before the disciplinary authority Senior Divisional Manager who after receipt of the enquiry report has issued second show cause notice along with copy of the enquiry report, petitioner has given due reply regarding finding of the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority has imposed punishment vide order dated 14.12.2001 passing order of penalty of recovery of Rs. 4038/- in terms of Regulation 39(1)(c) of the Regulations, 1960 and penalty of reduction in basic pay by six stages permanently in the time scale in terms of Regulation 39(1)(d) of the Regulation, 1960. The Reviewing Authority in exercise of power under Regulation 48(2) of Regulation, 1960 comes to conclusion that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is not in consonance with the gravity of charge and as such has issued show cause notice to answer the penalty of removal of service in terms of regulation 39(1)(f), petitioner has duly replied but the reviewing authority considering each and every aspect of the matter has imposed penalty of removal from service. 8. At this juncture, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of removal from service passed by the reviewing authority, reviewing authority after discussing each and every aspect of the matter has confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority, i.e. order of removal from service. The petitioner has not challenged earlier order dated 14.12.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority by which penalty of reduction in basic pay by six stages permanently in the time scale. This Court has disposed of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3305 of 2002 which was disposed according liberty to the petitioner to prefer Memorial, the petitioner filed Memorial before Chairman, but same was rejected by a reasoned order. 9. Now the question to be decided in this case is as to whether the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can disturb the fact finding given by the Enquiry Officer, disciplinary authority, reviewing authority and the authority who has decided Memorial. 9. Now the question to be decided in this case is as to whether the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can disturb the fact finding given by the Enquiry Officer, disciplinary authority, reviewing authority and the authority who has decided Memorial. In this regard ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. S.S. Ahluwalia, AIR 2007 SC 2952 : (2007) 10 JT 413 : (2007) 10 SCALE 344 : (2007) 7 SCC 257 : (2007) 2 SCC(L&S) 627 : (2007) 10 SCR 377 : (2008) 2 SLJ 174 : (2007) AIRSCW 5387 : (2007) 6 Supreme 521 wherein at paragraph-8 their Lordships has been pleased to hold: 8. "The learned Single Judge has also set aside the order by which a penalty of 10% deduction in pension for one year had been imposed. This part of the order has also been affirmed by the Division Bench. It may be mentioned here that Charge I was found to be partly proved and Charges II, III and IV were found to be fully proved. The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case the court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty. In the present case the penalty imposed upon the respondent was very small, namely, 10% deduction from pension for one year. Thus there was hardly any occasion for the High Court to interfere with the order of penalty passed by the competent authority. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and specially to the fact that the penalty was a small one being 10% deduction from the pension for one year only, we do not want to interfere with that part of the order of the learned Single Judge and also of the Division Bench." Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2014) 310 ELT 417 : (2015) 1 ESC 101 : (2015) 144 FLR 219 : (2015) LabIC 268 : (2014) 10 SCJ 341 has been pleased to hold at paragraph-13 which is reproduced herein below: "13. Despite the well settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). re-appreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience." 10. go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience." 10. From perusal of the judgment in the case of Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran (supra) it is apparent that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that High Court is not and cannot interfere the fact finding given by the disciplinary authority. High Court can only see whether- (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority? Here in this case the enquiry has been held by the Enquiry Officer since jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer has not been challenged. (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf? In this case it is not the case of the petitioner that the enquiry has not been held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf. (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings? No case has been made on behalf of the petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice. However, it has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the agent who had made complaint has not been permitted to be cross-examined but this ground cannot be said to be sustainable because the complaint made by the agent has been taken note by the Enquiry Officer to corroborate the allegation leveled against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer, on the basis of the documents produced by the presenting officer, has reached to the conclusion that the fraud has been committed by the petitioner, petitioner has been provided ample opportunity to cross-examine presenting officer as would be evident from the extract of the enquiry proceeding which has been annexed in this writ petition. In view of the above, it can be said that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case? In view of the above, it can be said that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case? This has also not been pointed out by the petitioner rather from the evidence it is evident that the petitioner by way of prefixing figure has withdrawn excess money from the exchequer and the petitioner is identified his handwritings and signatures made in the Bonus Commission register, it has come to the finding that the bonus register was kept with the petitioner and as such there is no question of manipulation by any other. In view of this, there is no case of extraneous consideration of evidence. (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations? (f) the conclusion, on the very fact of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion? These are also not apparent from the finding of the enquiry officer because considering the nature of seriousness of allegation, considering the conduct of the petitioner that he had withdrawn excess money by prefixing figure in the bonus register of agent commission as would be evident from the extract of the enquiry proceeding which has been annexed to the writ petition, it is a proved case of misappropriation. (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence? This is not the case of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority has failed to admit material evidence. (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding? This is not the case of petitioner. (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence? The Enquiry Officer given finding after taking into consideration of evidence of other agents as provided under the Regulation. 11. (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding? This is not the case of petitioner. (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence? The Enquiry Officer given finding after taking into consideration of evidence of other agents as provided under the Regulation. 11. Thus the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence, interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law, go into the adequacy of the evidence, go into the reliability of the evidence, interfere, if there is some legal evidence on which findings can be based, correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be, go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. The case of the petitioner is not falling under the category, where this Court interfere with the order of punishment. Moreover, the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority, reviewing authority and the ultimate authority, after discussing each and every aspect of the matter has passed order of punishment. However, initially lesser punishment was imposed but the reviewing authority after taking into consideration the gravity of nature of allegations, in exercise of power conferred under Regulation 48(2) of the Regulation, 1960 has inflicted major punishment on the ground that the allegations leveled against the petitioner relates to integrity and losing confidence upon he petitioner, this finding has been assailed by the petitioner before the authority empowering to decide Memorial who has passed a very conscious and detailed order after discussing each and every aspect of the matter. In view of the above, the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised. 12. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of removal from service is highly disproportionate, the question of judicial review of order of punishment on this ground will only arise when it shocks the conscience of the court that order of punishment is highly disproportionate. But the case of the petitioner is not coming under said category seeing the nature of charges which directly relates to integrity of an employee. If an employee having a man of no integrity, is not worth to be shown any sympathy. In this regard, the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (D) Thr. If an employee having a man of no integrity, is not worth to be shown any sympathy. In this regard, the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avinash Sadashiv Bhosale (D) Thr. L.Rs.. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2013) 1 ABR 190 : (2013) 115 CLT 432 : (2012) 9 JT 585 : (2012) 9 JT 566 : (2013) 1 LLJ 1 : (2012) 9 SCALE 505 : (2012) 3 SLJ 392 related with paragraphs 56 and 58 of the judgment which needs to be seen is being reproduced below: 56. "It must be emphasized that bank officials act as trustees of funds deposited by the public with the bank. They have an obligation to earn the public. The standard of integrity required of the bank officials, particularly the cashiers, accountants, auditors and the management at all levels, is like the Caesar's wife, they must be above suspicion. Mr. Bhosale failed to maintain such high standards of integrity. He therefore, acted in violation of Rule 50(4) of the 1992 Rules. 58. It is a settled proposition of law that the findings of an inquiry officer cannot be nullified so long as there is some relevant evidence in support of the conclusions recorded by the inquiry officer. 13. If the nature of allegation of petitioner will be seen, who being an employee of the financial institution like LIC Corporation of India, it is expected from the employee of such Corporation to act with utmost sincerity and integrity. Hence the order of punishment does not require any interference by this Court. 14. On the basis of the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Final Result : Dismissed