(P.K. Phukan, J.) Under assailment in this writ appeal is the order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) 5748/2005, refusing to interfere with the order of removal of the writ appellant from service by the respondent authorities. 2. The appellant, who was serving as Purchase Assistant, in the respondent Corporation was charge-sheeted for allegedly defrauding huge sums of money of the respondent Corporation by tempering with documents such as, invoices and challans showing discounts/rebates mentioned therein so that the incentives would not be known to others. 3. Further charge was that the appellant committed forgery of purchase requisitions and procured materials from Indian Oil Corporation with such forged documents and sold the same for his personal gain causing huge loss to the respondent Corporation. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings another charge sheet was also filed accusing him of non-delivery of lubricants in the stores of the respondent Corporation which was received from IOCL, Guwahati causing substantial loss to the respondent Corporation. 5. Denying the allegations, the writ appellant filed written statement against both the charge sheets filed against him. The departmental enquiry was conducted against him and the charges against him were held to have been established in respect of the charges in both the charge sheets, but, before imposition of penalty in the first charge sheet, the enquiry in respect of the second charge sheet got concluded and the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 04.05.2005 (Annexure-XIII) removing him from service mentioning therein that such removal would not be a disqualification for further employment. 6. The departmental appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of removal having been dismissed, the appellant filed writ petition before this Court which was also dismissed being without merit. 7. Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ appellant and Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ appellant made strenuous efforts to convince us that the order of removal of the appellant from service was illegal per se as he was not afforded opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry proceedings. J. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the writ appellant made strenuous efforts to convince us that the order of removal of the appellant from service was illegal per se as he was not afforded opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry proceedings. The copies of the documents relied on by the disciplinary authority were not provided to him and he was also not apprised of his right to have defence assistance during the enquiry which has caused not only serious prejudice to him but also he was handicapped in taking proper defence. The money suit filed by the respondent authorities against the delinquent employee for realization of the amount misappropriated by him, having been dismissed, the charge can not be held to be established. 9. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that during the enquiry, opportunity was afforded to the appellant to have access to the documents and he was also given the opportunity to engage the defence assistance and he having failed to do so, cannot claim at this stage that, opportunity was not given to him by the disciplinary authority. According to Mr. Roy the enquiry was conducted in a fair and transparent manner with full participation of the appellant and his plea that copies of documents were not provided or defence assistance was not given are not sustainable and the impugned order of removal from service can not be interfered with in this writ appeal. Mr. Roy further contends that dismissal of the money suit, against which appeal has been preferred, would not absolve him from liability in the departmental proceedings. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contentions, we have minutely gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and also the materials placed before us. We do not consider it necessary to further delve into the factual details of the case as the learned Single Judge in his elaborate judgment has discussed in detail the factual aspects of the case. We do not consider it necessary to further delve into the factual details of the case as the learned Single Judge in his elaborate judgment has discussed in detail the factual aspects of the case. He appears to have meticulously examined the files of the departmental proceedings which disclose that there was substantial compliance of the laid down procedures for conducting enquiry as provided under Certified Standing Orders of the Corporation and it is also revealed that the appellant was given access to documents during the enquiry and opportunity to engage his defence assistance was also given. There is specific observation in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge that the enquiry was conducted on different dates on which the writ appellant duly participated and when he was asked during enquiry as to whether he would like to produce any witness or document, his answer was in the negative. With regard to the defence assistance also, his reply was in the negative. The impugned order clearly shows that all the opportunities were provided to him during the enquiry and it was conducted in a fair and transparent manner in the presence of the appellant and he duly signed the day-to-day proceedings as a token of acceptance of the same. 11. The learned Single Judge upon consideration of the materials available on record particularly the proceeding files has come to the conclusion that the plea of the writ appellant that he was not given access to the documents and was not provided the opportunity to engage the defence assistance was not acceptable and we do not find any reason to interfere with his findings. 12. Mr. Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted before us that the appellant cannot be held responsible for the loss of the lubricants. According to him the challans and the lubricants which were handed over to him by the IOCL officials were handed over to truck drivers and when the trucks with the materials arrived at the gate of the Corporation office in the evening, the CISF personnel did not allow the trucks to enter the office complex which remained outside the office gate throughout the night and during that period the lubricants might have been stolen. The learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner being the receiver of the lubricants, it was his duty to deposit the same in the stores of the Corporation and the plea of the writ appellant was not accepted holding that he cannot be absolved from the responsibility of handing over the lubricants in the stores as it was his duty to do so. This finding of the learned Single Judge, in our considered view also calls for no interference. In his elaborate judgment, the learned Single Judge has referred to the assessment made by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the charges of misappropriation of the lubricants against the writ appellant which revealed that the appellant instead of depositing the lubricants in the stores of the respondent Corporation unloaded the same at Beltola or ASEB gate and had removed the corresponding challans which he did not hand over to the drivers concerned and this was purposefully done for personal gain which resulted substantial loss to the Corporation. 13. With regard to the assessment made by the Enquiry Officer, opportunity was given to the appellant for offering explanation and he took the stand that his duty was only to see whether the materials had reached the CISF gate of the Corporation with further contention that there might be loss of materials for which he can not be held liable. Having regard to the submissions, it would be apposite, at this stage, to refer to the assessment made by the Enquiry Officer after careful scrutiny of the evidence on record. “ASSESSMENT : Shri P.K. Das (C.O.) was the custodian of Lubricant Procurement File. He had been dealing the procurement of lubricants since April, 1994 as evident from M.D. 43, 44 and 45. Indent of materials (lubricants) received from Stores Deptt. in Purchase Deptt. went to Shri P.K. Das (C.O.) who telephoned IOC, Guwahati to determine the availability of the lubricants. Shri P.K. Das (CO) prepared IOM to Finance for payment of the amount as calculated on the basis of rate card and referred at M.D. 61 which was signed by Shri D.N. Mahapatra, Sri M (Pur) as referred at M.Ds. 53, 55 & 58. While preparing this memo, Shri P.K. Das (CO) used to add up excess amount than what was actually required as may be referred at M.D. 60. This excess amount matched with the price of 0.3 Nos. 53, 55 & 58. While preparing this memo, Shri P.K. Das (CO) used to add up excess amount than what was actually required as may be referred at M.D. 60. This excess amount matched with the price of 0.3 Nos. barrels of lubricant SMG20W40 or more, which has been agreed by Shri P.K. Das (CO) during enquiry held on 13.09.2004. Shri P.K. Das (CO) received the cheque from Finance Deptt. and prepared D.O. which was signed by Shri Naren Saikia, Executive (Purchase). When Shri Saikia was not available, other Executive signed the D.O. Five D.O.s were prepared by Shri P.K. Das (CO) on dates as mentioned in the Charge Sheet, i.e. during April’ 03 to June’ 03 as referred in M. Ds 19, 46, 47, 48, & 49. Shri P.K. Das (C.O.) alongwith cheque and D.O. then went to IOC with HPC’s truck No. ASN 5499 or hired truck Nos. AS 21/4257 & AS 01M/9283 as per record of IOC, Guwahati Security Register entries as may be referred in M.D.s 6, 15, 23, 34, 41 to bring the lubricants, Shri P.K. Das (CO) used to get post facto approval of his tour programmes as may be referred in M.Ds 1, 10, 17, 25 and 36. Shri P.K. Das (CO) deposited the cheque and D.O. in IOC Guwahati and received the lubricants as recorded in IOC Guwahati’s Challans/Invoices under his own signature, as agreed by Shri P.K. Das (CO) and as may be referred in M.D.s 3, 12, 20, 26 & 38. Shri P.K. Das (CO) on return from IOC, Guwahati to Jagiroad used to instruct the driver to go to Beltola (Lakhora) or ASEB gate and unloaded there 03 or 04 Nos. barrel of the lubricant or ASEB gate and unloaded there 03 or 04 Nos. barrel of the lubricant SMG20W40 at 4.00 p.m. On enquiry by the driver concerned Shri Babu Kanta Deka, Sr. Driver (M.W. 4) as to why the said lubricant was being unloaded at Beltola (Lakhora) Shri P.K. Das (CO) had replied that the said lubricant belonged to the IOC dealers. This reply of Shri P.K. Das (CO) is however ruled out since Shri P.K. Das (CO) had not brought any record or evidence during the enquiry which could prove that the lubricants belonged to IOC dealers. The lubricants belonging to HPC, NPM, brought from IOC, Guwahati against challan Nos. This reply of Shri P.K. Das (CO) is however ruled out since Shri P.K. Das (CO) had not brought any record or evidence during the enquiry which could prove that the lubricants belonged to IOC dealers. The lubricants belonging to HPC, NPM, brought from IOC, Guwahati against challan Nos. mentioned at para one above, were recorded in IOC, Guwahati’s Security Register . Shri P.K. Das (CO) had stated on 13.09.2004 that the item SMG20W40 was normally available from M/s Castrol and order was also placed over M/s Castrol. While going to IOC, Guwahati he (Shri Das) on the way at Ganeshguri Guwahati got down and enquired whether they were having SMG20W40………………. This statement was overruled by P.O stating that as per Rate Control dated 16.11.2002, valid up to 05.11.2003, with M/s Castrol there was no order placed for supply of item SMG20W40. Reference order copy No. 8/10/20101692/LRF/20201319 dated 06.11.2002 can be referred in M.D. 62. Shri P.K. Das (CO) had admitted that it was his mistake in his reply on 13.09.2004. Shri P.K. Das (CO) after unloading the lubricant SMG20W40 at Beltola (Lakhora) or ASEB Gate, used to get down at Jagiroad and handed over the challans to the driver concerned in respect of the materials in the truck. Shri Babu Kanta deka, Sr. Driver ( M. W4) had stated on 11.08.2004 that he (M. W4) had tallied the challans received from Shri P.K. Das (CO) with materials in the truck at the time of getting down of Shri P.K. Das (CO) at Jagiroad at 6.30 p.m. or 7.00 p.m. and next day M. W4 did not find shortage of challans or materials and no theft case ever. Shri P.K. Das (CO) in his statement on 29.7.2004 had stated that his duty was to see whether materials reached outside the CISF gate. On 05.08.2004 Shri P.K. Das (CO) stated that truck with loaded materials remained outside the CISF gate during late hours of evening and materials like bearing etc. had been stolen. The superior officers of Shri P.K. Das (CO) namely Sri S.N. Chakraborty, AM (Stores) (M.W3), Shri Naren Saikia, Executive (Purchase) (MW5) and Shri D.N. Mahapatra, Sr. M(Pur) (MW 7) have stated on 05.08.04, 26.08.04 and 30.08.04 respectively that Shri P.K. Das (CO) had responsibility of depositing lubricants including SMG20W40 received from IOC, Guwahati in NPM Stores. had been stolen. The superior officers of Shri P.K. Das (CO) namely Sri S.N. Chakraborty, AM (Stores) (M.W3), Shri Naren Saikia, Executive (Purchase) (MW5) and Shri D.N. Mahapatra, Sr. M(Pur) (MW 7) have stated on 05.08.04, 26.08.04 and 30.08.04 respectively that Shri P.K. Das (CO) had responsibility of depositing lubricants including SMG20W40 received from IOC, Guwahati in NPM Stores. As regards parking of the truck, Shri Babu Kanta (MW 4) stated on 11.08.04 that when the materials could not be deposited in the Stores the same day, he parked the truck at 6.30 p.m. or 7.00 p.m., sometimes in front of main Gate and sometimes inside the Materials Gate near CISF duty office after obtaining permission from CISF personnel. There was no theft or FIR in respect of items SMG20W40 during the period April’ 03 to June’ 03, as stated by Shri P.K. Das (CO) himself and Shri S.N Chakraborty, AM(Stores) (MW 3) on 05.08.2004 and Shri D.N. Mahapatra (MW7) on 30.08.04. The fact remained that 03 or 04 nos. barrels of the item SMG20W40 was unloaded at Beltola (Lakhora). Shri P.K. Das (CO) had stated on 14.09.04 that he did not verify the next day from the driver whether challans of items SMG20W40 were with the driver concerned and also did not verify in NPM stores whether items SMG20W40 had been deposited in NPM stores. The NPM Store Keeper Shir Khargeshwar Saikia SSW(SG) (MW 1) stated on 29.07.04 that he checked the materials in the truck as per the challan and when both materials and the challan tallied, he directed the labours to empty the truck. For example, five challans as per five items of lubricants were received and then entered in the Materials Receipt Log Register (Stores Department) on page No. 203 against Log No. E111 dated 27.05.03. MW 1 also stated that whatever challans were received, materials were checked and entered. MW 2 has stated that materials other than SMG20W40 were received entered in the Register and GRV prepared and passed as referred in MDs. 14, 22, 33 & 40 . On comparison of the entries of lubricants in IOC Guwahati’s Security Register and NPM’s Materials Receipt Log Register (Stores Deptt.), it is found that there was a difference of 03 or 04 nos. barrels of lubricants which were received from IOC, Guwahati but were not deposited in NPM Stores. This refers M.Ds. 14, 22, 33 & 40 . On comparison of the entries of lubricants in IOC Guwahati’s Security Register and NPM’s Materials Receipt Log Register (Stores Deptt.), it is found that there was a difference of 03 or 04 nos. barrels of lubricants which were received from IOC, Guwahati but were not deposited in NPM Stores. This refers M.Ds. 6, 7, 15, 16, 23, 24, 34, 35,41 & 42. There is no record of the item SMG20W40 in Material Gate Register of CISF also, although other items are recorded. This refers M.Ds 50 & 51. These 03 or 04 nos. barrels of lubricants corresponded with the disputed nos. of barrels of the same lubricant as referred in the charge sheet issued to Shri P.K. Das (CO) . It is therefore concluded beyond doubt that Shri P.K. Das (CO) had in fact unloaded the lubricant SMG20W40 at Beltola (Lakhora) or ASEB Gate and had removed the corresponding challan which he did not hand over to the driver concerned.” 14. From the assessment so made by the Enquiry Officer it comes to the fore that the delinquent employee instead of delivering the lubricants in the stores of the respondent Corporation had in fact unloaded the same either at Beltola or at ASEB gate. The contention of the delinquent employee that his duty was to see whether the materials had reached the CISF gate of the Corporation and that there might be theft of the materials was not found to be acceptable and accordingly, he was held liable. The assessment of the enquiry Officer clearly reveals that the findings were arrived at on the basis of the materials gathered during the enquiry and the evidence of the witnesses including the truck drivers. In our considered opinion, the enquiry finding which was also upheld in the departmental appeal calls for no interference as no procedural irregularity appears to have been committed. The learned Single Judge also in his order has clearly reflected that no procedural irregularity was committed during the enquiry proceedings and even no such plea was taken in the departmental appeal preferred by the delinquent employee against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 15. Another argument made by the learned Senior counsel Mr. The learned Single Judge also in his order has clearly reflected that no procedural irregularity was committed during the enquiry proceedings and even no such plea was taken in the departmental appeal preferred by the delinquent employee against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 15. Another argument made by the learned Senior counsel Mr. Mahanta with vehemence is that the money suit filed by the respondent Corporation against the appellant for realization of the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by him, having been dismissed, the charge of misappropriation against the writ appellant could not be held to have been proved. As a counter, Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent relying on the decision of the Apex Court in T.N. C. S. Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. K. Meerabai reported in (2006) 2 SCC 255 submitted to project that when the delinquent employee is found guilty of misappropriation of Corporation’s fund, the primary factor to be taken into consideration is the loss of confidence and not the amount of money misappropriated. The learned Single Judge has referred to para 35 of the aforesaid judgment where it has been observed as follows : “35. In the instant case, the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and, therefore, in our opinion, the matter should be dealt with firmly with firm hands and not leniently. In the instant case, the respondent deals with public money and is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity and, therefore, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, the conclusion of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We have no hesitation to set aside the same and restore the order passed by the disciplinary authorities upholding the order of dismissal.” 16. To buttress his submission further, Mr. Roy, learned counsel submitted that the Court exercising writ jurisdiction will not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority in respect of penalty imposed. 17. We have no hesitation to set aside the same and restore the order passed by the disciplinary authorities upholding the order of dismissal.” 16. To buttress his submission further, Mr. Roy, learned counsel submitted that the Court exercising writ jurisdiction will not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority in respect of penalty imposed. 17. The findings of the learned Single Judge that the departmental proceeding having been initiated against the delinquent for misconduct and the same being established in the enquiry, the Corporation lost its confidence on the petitioner and it was within its jurisdiction and competence to remove the petitioner from service pursuant to the departmental proceeding in which the charge brought against him was established even though the money suit initiated against him for realization of the amount was dismissed, in our considered opinion can not be interfered with. Moreover, the money suit has not attained finality and the appeal against the dismissal order is pending. The learned Single Judge also observed that the misconduct attributed to the delinquent, being quite distinct and different, the petitioner cannot harp upon the said civil proceeding so as to question the departmental proceeding in which he was found guilty of the charges. 18. On an overall assessment of the entire materials placed before us and having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the impugned order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any material to show that the disciplinary authority had been biased and prejudiced towards the delinquent employee and the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated with pre-determined mind to punish him. The delinquent was all through out present during the enquiry proceedings and he was given access to all the documents relied on by the disciplinary authority and his right to have the services of an assistant was also apprised to him but he himself refused to engage one. The charges brought against him were of serious nature and because of his misconduct and dishonest intention to defraud the respondent Corporation, he lost confidence of his employers compelling them to remove him from service and the charges having been well established against him, he was removed from service. The charges brought against him were of serious nature and because of his misconduct and dishonest intention to defraud the respondent Corporation, he lost confidence of his employers compelling them to remove him from service and the charges having been well established against him, he was removed from service. No contravention of any rules or incompetence of the authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent employee has been brought to our notice. The learned Single Judge in his eloquent judgment has discussed in detail all the pros and cons and dismissed the writ petition holding the same to be without merit and on evaluation of the same we do not find any reason to interfere with the said findings. 19. Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. 20. The parties are to bear their own cost.