JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the Respondent-Employee State Insurance Corporation. 2. Applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00003 of 2016 is the writ petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 17th May, 2017 passed by learned Tribunal, whereunder prayer for setting aside the punishment order dated 2nd July, 2014 passed by Disciplinary Authority was rejected and the original application was dismissed. Applicant had also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated 27th November, 2014, whereby the Appellate Authority modified the order of punishment by restricting its effect upto 30th October, 2014 i.e. one month prior to his impending retirement on 30th November, 2014 keeping into account his unblemished service for more than 37 years. Applicant had also sought for a direction upon the respondent to promote him with effect from 1st November, 2014 with all consequential benefits on the post of Ad-hoc Assistant in view of Departmental Promotion Committee meeting dated 25th July, 2013 which kept his case under seal cover. Learned Tribunal rejected both the subsequent prayers as well. 3. Applicant faced departmental proceeding for the charges that he had fraudulently obtained medical reimbursement of Rs. 1117.82 on the basis of OPD Ticket Sl. No. Nil Registration No.413 dated 16th February, 2009 of Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi and Cash Memo No. A 1824 dated 16th February, 2009 of the Medicine Shop Relief, Jatratand, Kokar, Ranchi in respect of himself. The second charge also related to obtaining false medical reimbursement of Rs. 1214.46 on the basis of OPD Ticket Sl. No. Nil, Registration No. 437 dated 16th February, 2009 of RIMS, Ranchi and Cash Memo No. A 1819 dated 16th February, 2009 of the same medical shop in respect of his wife. The Enquiry Officer was changed on account of transfer of first Enquiry Officer and finally inquiry report was submitted on 15th March, 2014 holding the applicant guilty of the charges. Applicant submitted his representation against the inquiry report on 4th April, 2014 and on consideration of the case records and his show cause, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of reduction of his pay by one stage without cumulative effect for a period of two years, besides the recovery of the amount paid for medical reimbursement. Applicant deposited the amount. 4. Applicant deposited the amount. 4. Applicant preferred an appeal in which the Appellate Authority by order dated 27th November, 2014 modified the order of punishment taking into account the fact that he had deposited the total amount of Rs. 2359/- with penal interest, that he had unblemished service for more than 37 years and he was going to retire on 30th November, 2014. By taking a lenient view the period of penalty was reduced to the extent that reduction of his pay by one stage without cumulative effect will be effective till 31st October, 2014 only. 5. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied approached the learned Tribunal which refused to interfere in the orders of punishment while also making certain adverse observations on the Respondent-Corporation for extending misplaced kindness towards applicant in a case where he had been found guilty of obtaining reimbursement of false medical bills. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken us through inquiry report and memo of appeal and submitted that the inquiry was not in accordance with law. One Dr. D.K. Jha despite being examined did not sign the deposition which has also been made the basis for indicting the employee of the charges. According to him, there were 16 cases in which Enquiry Authorities were appointed. Information furnished through RTI to one Raj Kishore Prasad and Sri Suraj Kumar by RIMS Authorities indicated that OPD Tickets were issued to them and that it was genuine. The owner of the medicine shop had also contradicted the findings in the investigation report. In such circumstances, incidence of procuring the reimbursement through false medical bills were not proved to arrive at the guilt of the employee/applicant. The punishment imposed was not proper in the eye of law. This aspect has not been properly considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and has also been completely overlooked by learned Tribunal. According to the applicant, procedure for imposing penalty was not followed. He has referred to Chapter XII of CCS (CCA) Rules, which provides for instruction to Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Guidelines prescribed under Office Memorandum dated 10th April, 1989 and 15th December, 2004. He submits that if the currency of the punishment had been over, the case of the applicant was fit for consideration for promotion and the sealed cover could be opened after the punishment was over. 7. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the Guidelines prescribed under Office Memorandum dated 10th April, 1989 and 15th December, 2004. He submits that if the currency of the punishment had been over, the case of the applicant was fit for consideration for promotion and the sealed cover could be opened after the punishment was over. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. He submits that after adequate opportunity to the applicant, the Enquiry Officer has found the charges established. This applicant had not obtained any information under RTI in respect of OPD Tickets furnished to him to prove that they were genuine unlike the case of Sri Raj Kishore Prasad and Shri Suraj Kumar. Appellate Authority has also taken into account his contention that though Dr. D.K. Jha had not signed the proceedings and his depositions, but was examined/cross-examined by Presiding Officer and four D.As including D.A of the appellant in the presence of the Inquiry Officer, and these were signed by them. Therefore, the deposition of Dr. D.K. Jha could not be denied. The owner of Chemist shop denied the allegation during departmental inquiry. This had also to be taken with a pinch of salt as during inquiry before Vigilance Team he had stated to contrary. Appellate Authority, however, taking into account his unblemished service for more than 37 years and his impending retirement took a lenient view. Accordingly the penalty was modified to reduction of his pay by one stage without cumulative effect to be effective till 31st October, 2014 only. Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the case of the applicant in a sealed cover only on account of pending inquiry against him. It is not a case that he has been exonerated of the charges altogether. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority limiting the punishment till 31st October, 2014 only would have no effect so far as the claim for promotion to Ad-hoc Assistant is concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment reported in (2013) 4 SCC 161 in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar in support of his submission that after the currency of the punishment has come to an end the sealed cover procedure is required, to be followed and his case should have been considered for promotion. 9. Anil Kumar Sarkar in support of his submission that after the currency of the punishment has come to an end the sealed cover procedure is required, to be followed and his case should have been considered for promotion. 9. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, taken note of the relevant material pleadings and documents on record. We have also perused the impugned order and the judgment cited by learned counsel for the applicant. We may at the outset refer to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 on the scope of judicial review in such matters. The Superior Court exercising the powers of judicial review does not act as an Appellate Authority to appraise the material evidence adduced during departmental inquiry on merits. It is the decision making process which is under judicial review and whether there has been violation of principles of nature justice. In the case at hand, in the light of the materials on record, we do not find that the applicant was denied fair opportunity to defend himself in the departmental inquiry. Grounds on merits urged by the applicant on the proof of imputations have been adequately dealt with by the Appellate Authority as also noted above which do not call for any interference at this stage. The appellate authority has taken a lenient view of the matter taking into account his impending retirement on 30th November, 2014 and that he had unblemished service record for last 37 years. It has accordingly modified the punishment and held that reduction of pay for one stage only without cumulative effect will be effective till 31st October, 2014 i.e., one month before his retirement. It meant that the applicant got full salary in the last month of retirement. In that context, we do not find any reason to take a different view of the matter then the learned tribunal. 10. However, the currency of the punishment came to an end on 31st October, 2014 before his retirement. The applicant may or may not have been entitled for promotion as per Departmental Rules and Office Memorandum applicable to the Respondent-Corporation. 10. However, the currency of the punishment came to an end on 31st October, 2014 before his retirement. The applicant may or may not have been entitled for promotion as per Departmental Rules and Office Memorandum applicable to the Respondent-Corporation. Therefore, in the fitness of things, it is left open for the applicant to make a representation before the competent authority of the Corporation to consider his plea for promotion. Such a representation may be considered in accordance with law by the competent authority on its own merits. However, we have made no observation in relation to the admissibility of such claim for promotion. 11. Accordingly, this application is partly allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated hereinabove.