JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and where under the order passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dtd.5.11.1998 passed in O.A. No.584 of 1991 has been assailed by the State of Odisha wherein the Tribunal, while reversing the order of punishment by substituting the order of dismissal to the effect of awarding 3 black marks with a direction to treat the period of suspension as such and directed the applicant to be reinstated in service against any available vacancy. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the opposite party no.1 – applicant was appointed as a Jr. Clerk in the office of Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar with effect from 25.8.1984. After a short span of his service career there was an allegation against him of accepting illegal gratification of Rs.700/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.900/- from three persons for providing jobs for their children. He was charged with misconduct and moral turpitude and a proceeding was drawn which was entrusted to Addl. Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar for enquiry. The Addl. Superintendent of Police, during enquiry, taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses and the statement of the investigating officer, has came to finding that the charge of acceptance of money from one Achyute Dhangudia, Chitaranjan Naik and Kailash Jena is proved beyond any doubt. Accordingly, the report was sent before the Superintendent of Police, who while agreeing with the finding, has awarded punishment of 3 black marks with a direction to treat the period of suspension from 10.12.1985 as such. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Western Range, in terms of Police Manual Rule 853 reviewed the proceeding and passed orders after observing due formality, i.e. after considering the show cause explanation of opposite party no.1 and being satisfied that the punishment was inadequate in view of the gravity of the charge, imposed the punishment of dismissal. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Western Range, in terms of Police Manual Rule 853 reviewed the proceeding and passed orders after observing due formality, i.e. after considering the show cause explanation of opposite party no.1 and being satisfied that the punishment was inadequate in view of the gravity of the charge, imposed the punishment of dismissal. The opposite party no.1, against the order of dismissal, filed an appeal before the Director General and Inspector General of Police, who on careful consideration of the evidence on record, has upheld the orders passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police against which original application being O.A. No.584 of 1991 has been filed for quashing the orders of punishment, the Tribunal while interfering with the decision of the authorities, have revived the order passed by the original authority with a direction to reinstate him in service, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The grounds which has been taken by the State of Orissa while assailing the order is that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by assuming the power of disciplinary authority by reversing the order of punishment of dismissal which can only be exercised in rarest of rare cases if the situation so warrants i.e. if there is no consideration of the evidence relied upon by the delinquent employee by the enquiry officer or miscarriage of justice or there is violation of principle of natural justice, but no such ground has been made out by the delinquent employee before the tribunal and without appreciating this aspect of the matter, the order of punishment has been interfered with. He submits that since the charge is of moral turpitude regarding taking bribe, hence proceeding has been drawn up, the charge having been proved, the delinquent authority has imposed punishment but by imposing three black marks only while the Deputy Inspector General of Police, exercising the power conferred upon him under Rule 853 of Police Manual Rules, has differed the order of punishment seeing the gravity of the charge, hence reversed the order of punishment after following the procedure laid down in the rule and passed order of dismissal by reversing the order of punishment of imposition of three black marks which has been concurred by the revisional authority, hence there is two concurrent findings passed by competent authorities and the same is within the jurisdiction of the authorities hence the same should not have been interfered by the tribunal considering the gravity of allegation which pertains to moral turpitude. 4. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The admitted position in this case is that the petitioner got his appointment as Jr. Clerk in the office of Superintendent of Police, while he was serving a departmental proceeding was initiated against him for an allegation of taking gratification of Rs.700/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.900/- from three persons. Accordingly, the enquiry committee has been constituted in which the petitioner has participated and the enquiry officer, on the basis of the deposition led and the documents placed before him, has found the charge proved. Enquiry Officer has forwarded the enquiry report before the disciplinary authority who, after following the principle of natural justice, has imposed the punishment of imposition of three black marks. The petitioner has been provided with all opportunity of hearing before the enquiry officer since nothing has been complained either before the tribunal or before this court with respect to not following the principle of natural justice. The Deputy General of Police, in exercise of power conferred under Rule 853 of the Police Manual Rules, has reviewed the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority by following the principle of natural justice, considering the gravity of the nature of allegation, has imposed the punishment of dismissal since the same relates to moral turpitude i.e. taking illegal gratification from three persons to provide their children with Government jobs. A revision has been preferred before the Director General of Police – cum Inspector General of Police who has confirmed the order of punishment passed by the Appellate Authority. The tribunal while interfering with the order of punishment has gone into the point purely on sympathetic consideration by considering that the applicant has put only five years of service at the relevant point of time and he belongs to Scheduled Caste and as such awarding black mark itself is a major penalty, has reversed the order of dismissal to that of imposing three black marks, but according to us the sympathy shown by the tribunal is not at all warranted considering the gravity of the allegation which pertains to moral turpitude that is of taking illegal gratification. It is also not in dispute that merely on sympathy the punishment of dismissal cannot be altered, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan and Others vrs. J. Hussain, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 106 wherein, at paragraph 15, their Lordships have been pleased to hold as follows:- “15. 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. 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. 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 few recent decisions of this Court.” 5. 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, 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. 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 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. 6. We have examined the case in hand on the basis of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases referred herein above and have found that no such situation was in existence before the tribunal considering the nature of allegation which pertains to moral turpitude and integrity which led it to interfere with the order of punishment purely on sympathetic ground, hence we are not in agreement with the finding of the tribunal, as such order is not sustainable in the eye of law, accordingly the same is set aside. In the result the writ petition stands allowed.