ORDER : 1. The order passed by the first respondent in G.O. (2D)No.54, dated 05 March, 2009, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of twelve months without cumulative effect, besides recovery of loss, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. THE FACTS: 2. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer, in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Dindigul, a charge memo was issued to him by the third respondent. The third respondent alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with the other officials, has manipulated records and affixed false signatures as if a subsidy amount of Rs.6,66,248/- was given to 46 farmers for implementation of Drip Irrigation System. There is a specific allegation that the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs.66,492/-. 3. The disciplinary authority appointed Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the enquiry report, passed the impugned order of punishment. 4. The order is challenged on multiple grounds including delay. 5. The first and second respondents filed a counter-affidavit indicating the nature of charges and the evidence collected by the disciplinary authority, which was the basis for passing the impugned order of punishment. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no direct evidence to connect the petitioner with the misconduct in question and as such, the disciplinary authority was not correct in imposing the punishment. According to the learned counsel, there was no satisfaction arrived at by the first respondent on the basis of materials with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the act of misconduct and as such, the punishment is liable to be set aside. 7. The learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order. DISCUSSION: 8. The disciplinary authority alleged that the petitioner along with few other Engineers manipulated records and affixed false signatures as if a sum of Rs.6,66,248/- was given to the agriculturists under Drip Irrigation System. The disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer. The impugned order shows that detailed enquiry with due opportunity to the petitioner was conducted before imposing the punishment. 9. The petitioner along with other officers forged the signatures of agriculturists and misappropriated the amount due to them. The Presenting Officer examined 36 witnesses and marked 100 documents to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner. The enquiry clearly revealed that the petitioner and other employees misappropriated the subsidy amount and thereby, cheated the poor agriculturists. 10. 9. The petitioner along with other officers forged the signatures of agriculturists and misappropriated the amount due to them. The Presenting Officer examined 36 witnesses and marked 100 documents to substantiate the charges framed against the petitioner. The enquiry clearly revealed that the petitioner and other employees misappropriated the subsidy amount and thereby, cheated the poor agriculturists. 10. The disciplinary authority considered the charge memo, explanation submitted by the petitioner and the evidence on record and imposed the punishment. 11. This is not a case wherein there is no legal evidence to substantiate the charge. The report submitted by the Enquiry Officer clearly shows that the charges were proved on the basis of materials. 12. The petitioner now wanted this Court to appreciate the materials once again and to take a different view. The judicial review in a matter of this nature is very limited. It is not within the province of this Court to re-appreciate the materials and to arrive at a different view. Even if two views are possible, the view taken by the disciplinary authority should be given prominence. I am, therefore, of the view that there is absolutely no merit in the contention taken by the petitioner. 13. In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.