JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B.D. Das, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The learned Advocate Mr. R. Dev appears for the respondent Nos.4—7. The learned CGC Ms. R. Bora appears for the respondent No.3, while Mr. S.K. Ghosh, the learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department, represents the respondent No.2. 2.1. The matter pertains to a Disciplinary Proceeding (DP) in respect of the petitioner, who served as a teacher of the Little Star Senior Secondary School, Digboi in Tinsukia District. In pursuant to a DP, drawn up against the teacher, on the basis of the adverse finding, recorded by the Inquiry Officer on 10.6.2009, the service of the teacher was terminated on 1.12.2009. 2.2. Earlier the petitioner was discharged on 29.3.2008 but when the disciplinary action was challenged, the High Court under the judgment dated 22.12.2008, in the WP(C) No.1409/2008, found the DP to be unsustainable and accordingly quashed the termination order dated 29.3.2008. But liberty was granted to the employer to proceed de novo against the delinquent teacher. 2.3. Following the above interference by the Writ Court, the disciplinary authority started a fresh proceeding on 24.2.2009 (page-104) and conducted a domestic inquiry on the basis of the earlier charge memo(s) dated 10.1.2008, 29.10.2008, 31.12.2008 and 27.1.2009, respectively. The delinquent did not present himself before the Inquiry Officer. Eventually the charges were declared to be proved on 10.6.2009, in the ex-parte proceeding. 2.4. Thereafter the copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the delinquent but he failed to respond thereto. The School Management accordingly considered the adverse findings and also the nature of the charge and ordered for termination of the teacher on 1.12.2009. 3.1. Assailing the legality of the disciplinary action, Mr. B.D. Das, the learned senior counsel submits that the adverse findings were recorded on the charges, which do not correspond to the documents relied upon by the Inquiry Officer. 3.2. The legality of the finding is questioned by the petitioner by projecting that the delinquent was denied of due opportunity, to defend the charges. 4.1. On the other hand, Mr. R. Dev, the learned counsel submits that the show cause notice of 24.2.2009 for the de-novo proceeding, clearly referred to four charge memo(s) dated 10.1.2008, 29.10.2008, 31.12.2008 and 27.1.2009 and the learned counsel submits that the recorded findings correspond to the allegation, mentioned in those charge memos. 4.2. 4.1. On the other hand, Mr. R. Dev, the learned counsel submits that the show cause notice of 24.2.2009 for the de-novo proceeding, clearly referred to four charge memo(s) dated 10.1.2008, 29.10.2008, 31.12.2008 and 27.1.2009 and the learned counsel submits that the recorded findings correspond to the allegation, mentioned in those charge memos. 4.2. It is further submitted by the employer’s counsel that conclusions were based upon cogent evidence and since the petitioner himself refused to participate in the departmental inquiry, his challenge to the enquiry finding cannot be accepted. 5. In the present case, a fresh proceeding was initiated after interference with earlier proceedings by the High Court’s judgment dated 22.12.2008 and it can be seen from the show cause notice dated 24.2.2009, that the basis of the fresh proceeding were the previous charge memos. The findings recorded relate directly to the allegation leveled in the charge memos and therefore since it was a continuation of the earlier proceeding, it cannot be said that the proceeding is faulty for not leveling fresh charges against the delinquent. 6. The delinquent as can be seen was given adequate opportunity to participate in the inquiry and was also informed to take the assistance of a colleague in the proceeding. But despite written notice(s), the delinquent failed to present himself before Inquiry Officer. Eventually public notice was issued in the Assam Tribune, on consecutive dates with request to the delinquent to appear before the Inquiry Officer but he failed to make himself available and thus inquiry was conducted ex-parte. 7. The findings of the Inquiry Officer were forwarded to the delinquent and the same was served. But no response was received on the Management’s notice dated 1.7.2009. Eventually the disciplinary authority considered the misconduct and after having declared that the delinquent has lost the confidence of the employer, decided to terminate his service and accordingly the impugned order was issued on 1.12.2009. 8. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the Writ Court cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the enquiry officer. When disciplinary action is taken, the Writ Court should not sit in judgment over the findings recorded in the enquiry and if some material is available to justify the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer, interference is not called for. In light of this, if we examine the enquiry report, it can be seen that the evidence were recorded on the basis of relevant materials and it cannot be said that the findings are perverse in nature. 9. That apart, the disciplinary authority had taken care to provide all opportunities to the delinquent to participate in the inquiry and to defend the charges but despite multiple notices and also the public notice in the newspaper, the delinquent decided to stay away from the inquiry proceedings. In such circumstances, the ex-parte finding cannot be faulted. Moreover the delinquent having kept himself away from the enquiry proceeding, should not be allowed to take advantage of his absence in the enquiry. 10. When we examine the nature of the charges, the loss of confidence of the employer cannot be said to be unreasonable and therefore the termination of service for the errant teacher, is found to be in order. 11. Following the above discussion, the present challenge cannot be sustained and accordingly this writ petition is found devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No cost.