JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 2.11.2010 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.No.2594(C) of 2008 is under challenge, whereby and where under the punishment of reduction of 50% of pension has been allowed to stand. 2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that while he was continuing as Stenographer Grade-I, promoted to the rank of Personal Assistant, Private Secretary and Principal Private Secretary. While continuing as such a notification dated 13.8.2013 has been issued making him to retire on 31.8.2003 when he was at the verge of retirement and vide order dated 27.8.2003 he was relieved from his duty on the ground that the petitioner has manipulated his date of birth from 14.8.1940 to 14.8.1945 in his HSC pass certificate. The authorities has initiated a disciplinary proceeding vide memorandum dated 20.9.2004 under Rule 7(2)(b) of the Orissa Civil Service(Pension) Rules,1992. He has submitted his written defence, enquiry officer after completion of enquiry has submitted his report on 22.7.2006, on receipt of enquiry report the disciplinary authority had issued show cause notice on 20.9.2006 asking him to submit his representation in terms of the provisions of Rule 15(10(i)(a) of the Orissa Civil Service(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1962. The petitioner on receipt of the enquiry report submitted his reply on 7.10.2006 but without proper appreciating the stand of the petitioner, second show cause notice was issued on 12.11.2007 by proposing punishment to recover Rs.7,74,993/- and to reduce 50% of his pension permanently. He has submitted his reply to the second show cause notice on 24.11.2007, but the authorities without considering the same, has passed order of punishment whereby and where under decided to award him punishment to recover Rs.7,74,993.00/- from his retiral dues and to reduce 5-50% of his pension permanently. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved has approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal without appreciating the legal position as well as the factual aspect has passed the order although order of recovery has been quashed but the order of reduction of pension to the extent of 50% has been allowed to continue. According to the petitioner, the order of punishment is disproportionate to the charge, this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the authorities. 4. According to the petitioner, the order of punishment is disproportionate to the charge, this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the authorities. 4. While, on the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party-State has countered the argument of the petitioner by submitting that there is no infirmity in the order of punishment rather the petitioner has committed gross misconduct in continuing with the service by making manipulation in the date of birth and thereby remained in service for a long period, got the service benefit which is gross misconduct under the service jurisprudence, when the authorities came to know about this, he has been allowed to retire with direction to initiate disciplinary proceeding under the provision of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules,1962 who has been given opportunity to defend himself and thereafter the order of punishment has been passed, hence there is no infirmity in the same. It has been submitted that the Tribunal although quashed the order of recovery taking into consideration of the fact that there cannot be recovery of amount since same was by way of disbursement of salary in lieu of work performed by him while he was continuing in service. So far as part of pension to the extent of 50% which has been directed to be reduced by the order of punishment, there is no infirmity of the same and after taking into account the serious nature of charge, the authority has inflicted the same within its jurisdiction. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. The fact which is not in dispute is that the petitioner while performing his duty under the State authority had continued in service up to 27.8.2003 while actually he ought to have got retirement on the basis of actual date of birth that is with effect from 31.8.1998 but by making manipulation in the HSC certificate he continued to discharge his duty for about five years more. The authorities after coming to know about this and on verification of the HSC certificate on the basis of the fact finding enquiry, a decision was taken to initiate a departmental proceeding under the provision of Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992 which provides provision to initiate a proceeding for withdrawal of part or whole of pension after retirement of the public servant. The enquiry was directed to be conducted in which the petitioner has participated to defend his charge regarding commission and misconduct by making manipulation in the document to get benefit, due to that the Government has put to pecuniary loss hence the petitioner has committed gross misconduct. The petitioner has defended himself before the Enquiry Officer wherein he has availed all opportunities to defend himself as per the said Rule. The enquiry officer has found the charge proved against him and thereafter the same was forwarded before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after acceptance of the enquiry report has issued second show cause notice which has duly been responded by the petitioner but the authorities not being satisfied with the response, has imposed punishment of recovery of Rs.7,74,993/- on account of the fact that he, without his entitlement, has got the salary after 31.8.1998, hence the Government has put to pecuniary loss, accordingly order of recovery has been passed with further direction to reduce the quantum of pension to the extent of 50%. 7. It has not been disputed that in the State of Orissa there is provision to initiate a proceeding for withdrawal of part or full of pension under Rule 7 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. The petitioner while working under the State Government has got his service on the strength of HSC Certificate which subsequently found to be manipulated by him to continue in service even more than the date of superannuation. As per the record he ought to have been retired w.e.f. 31.8.1998 but due to manipulation in the HSC certificate he continued in service even after his retirement and accordingly a notice of retirement has been issue which has been given effect to w.e.f. 27.8.2003. The authorities, after taking into consideration the misconduct having been committed, has initiated a proceeding under the provision of Rule 7 of OCS (Pension) Rules,1992 in which the order of punishment of recovery of amount as well as reduction of amount of pension to the extent of 50% has been passed which is under challenge in this writ petition. 8. The petitioner has not made any complaint that he has not been provided adequate opportunity of being heard. We have not gathered from the record that the petitioner has made any complaint that he has not been provided adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. The petitioner has not made any complaint that he has not been provided adequate opportunity of being heard. We have not gathered from the record that the petitioner has made any complaint that he has not been provided adequate opportunity of being heard. It is not the case of the petitioner that the order passed by the authority is without jurisdiction. There is no dispute about the fact that a Government servant is supposed to act with integrity. In the instant case, the petitioner was very much known that when he is to attain the age of superannuation but even knowing that he continued to discharge his duty even after the date of his superannuation which according to us is gross misconduct and that is only for the personal gain so that he may continue even after the normal age of superannuation. The authorities although has directed to recover the amount but the Tribunal has quashed that part of the order considering the fact the whatever the petitioner has been given, that is in lieu of work performed by him. So far as reduction of amount of pension to the extent of 50% is concerned, the same has been passed after charge having been proved. 9. It is not in dispute that the power of High Court sitting under Article 226 and 227 is very limited, judicial review can only be made if there is any violation of principle of nature justice or the order is being passed without any jurisdiction but that is not the case hear. In this respect, judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 , wherein in paragraph 7 it has been held as follows : “7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, 10 Page 11 capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in another judgment rendered in Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal v. Union of India and others, (2014) 2 SCC 748 has been pleased to held at para-5 as follows: “It is now well settled that it is open to the Court, in all circumstances, to consider whether the punishment imposed on the delinquent workman or officer, as the case may be, is commensurate with the Articles of Charge levelled against him. There is a deluge of decisions on this question and we do not propose to travel beyond Union of India v. S.S. Ahluwalia (2007) 7 SCC 257 in which this Court had held that if the conscience of the Court is shocked as to the severity or inappropriateness of the punishment imposed, it can remand the matter back for fresh consideration to the DisciplinaryAuthority concerned. In that case, the punishment that had been imposed was the deduction of 10% from the pension for a period of one year. The High Court had set aside that order. In those premises, this Court did not think it expedient to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority and instead approved the decision of the High Court.” In Union of India v. P.Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 , the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 20 has held as follows: “Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable 4 standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is “moral uprightness; honesty”. It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values.” In view of the settled proposition of law and since there is finding by the enquiry officer based upon which the disciplinary authority has passed order, we sitting under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot reverse the fact finding assuming the power of the appellate court. 10. So far as the contention raised by the petitioner that reduction of 50% of pension permanently is disproportionate to the offence committed, we are not in agreement with this argument, reason being that the petitioner even after knowing the fact he is to superannuate with effect from 31.8.1998, he continued to discharge his duty fairly for a period of more than 4 years, as such it is the gross negligence on his part for which the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, otherwise also on sympathy no order can be passed, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan –vs- J. Hussain, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 106 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held at paragraph-15 which is being quoted herein below: “The High Court has also mentioned in the impugned order that the respondent is a married man with family consisting of number of dependants and is suffering hardship because of the said “economic capital punishment”. However, such mitigating circumstances are to be looked into by the departmental authorities. It was not even pleaded before them and is an after-effect of the penalty. In all cases dealing with the penalty of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirements, hardship would result. That would not mean that in a given case punishment of removal can be discarded by the Court. That cannot be a ground for the Court to interdict the penalty. It was not even pleaded before them and is an after-effect of the penalty. In all cases dealing with the penalty of removal, dismissal or compulsory retirements, hardship would result. That would not mean that in a given case punishment of removal can be discarded by the Court. That cannot be a ground for the Court to interdict the penalty. This is specifically held by this Court in Hombe Gouda Educational Trust –vs- State of Karnataka, (2006) 1 SCC 430 in the following words: “20.A person, when dismissed from service, is put to a great hardship but that would not mean that a grave misconduct should go unpunished. Although the doctrine of proportionality may be applicable in such matters, but a punishment of dismissal from service for such a misconduct cannot be said to be unheard of. Maintenance of discipline of an institution is equally important. Keeping the aforementioned principles in view, we may hereinafter notice a fee recent decisions of this Court.” Moreover, the interference by a court of law regarding quantum of punishment or legality or propriety of the order of punishment is very limited under its judicial review, which can only be exercised in certain conditions as has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P and Others Vrs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Another, 2006 5 SCC 673 wherein their Lordships have been pleased to hold that (it is settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed.) In another judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State Bank of Hyderabad and Another Vrs. P.Kata Rao, 2008 15 SCC 657 wherein at para 18 and 19 it has been held as follows:- “18. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of superior courts in interfering with a finding of fact arrived at by the enquiry officer is limited. The High Court, it is trite, would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of superior courts in interfering with a finding of fact arrived at by the enquiry officer is limited. The High Court, it is trite, would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment. There cannot, furthermore, be any doubt or dispute that only because the delinquent employee who was also facing a criminal charge stands acquitted, the same, by itself, would not debar the disciplinary authority in initiating a fresh departmental proceeding and/or where the departmental proceedings had already been initiated, to continue therewith. 19. We are not unmindful of different principles laid down by this Court from time to time. The approach that the Court’s jurisdiction is unlimited although had not found favour with some Benches, the applicability of the doctrine of proportionality, however, had not been deviated from.” In the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and Others Vrs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in AIR 2015 SC 545 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to laid down a guideline in order to make interference with the order of punishment which is being quoted 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.1 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 Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The 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 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 a 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.” Thus the settled legal proposition is that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and the High Court cannot sit as an appellate court and in the recent judgment rendered in case of Union of India Vrs. P. Gunasekaran (supra) it has been held that the High Court can interfere under Article 226 but cannot interfere under Art.226 to re-appreciate the evidence, to interfere with the conclusion 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 be some legal evidence on which findings can be based, correct the errors of fact however grave it may appear to be, go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience and the High Court can only see whether the enquiry held by competent authority or the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed or there is violation of principle of natural justice in conducting the proceeding, the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some consideration extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous consideration, 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, the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence, the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding and the finding of fact based on no evidence. 11. In view thereof, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.