JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Central Coalfields Limited. 2. On 28.05.2003 during inspection by the Head Quarter Vigilance Team at Makoli Weigh Bridge under the C.C.L, variation in tare weight of 36 trucks were observed. Petitioner, a lower division clerk and 6 others, who were posted at SDQ 3 Project were charge-sheeted on 18.10.2004 (Annexure-1) for the same charge: "That on 28.05.2003 during surprise inspection of Makoli Weighbridge by HQ Vigilance Team, variations in tare weights of 36 trucks were observed which amounts gross negligence of work & constituted misconduct for fraud or dishonesty in connection with employer''s business". This amounted to subversion of discipline and constitutes misconduct under clause 26.1 and 26.5 of the Certified Standing Orders, which read as under: "26.1 Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the employer''s business and property. 26.5 Wilful neglect of work." Learned counsel for the respondent CCL informs on instruction that each one of the 7 employees were proceeded against and the charges were found to be proved against them. Rest 6 have not assailed their punishment though petitioner alone has challenged the punishment of withholding of 2 annual increments with cumulative effect along with debarment from working / posting at sensitive post during the period of coming 6 years. The enquiry report in respect of the petitioner is at Annexure-3 dated 23.05.2005 and the order of punishment dated 23.02.2006, impugned herein is at Annexure-6 issued by the Project Officer, SDQ3 Project. 3. Respondents have in the first counter affidavit enclosed the minutes of the disciplinary proceedings which was attended by the petitioner as well. Petitioner has enclosed a chart at Annexre-8, which according to him shows that Trucks at Serial No. 10,16, 26 were measured by the petitioner as 100,40 and 40 respectively while the other persons measured the said truck on different dates as 320,440, 220 respectively. The other persons gave high weight measurement of the same trucks, which ought to have been considered for fixing separate accountability of negligence of individual employees, which may have occasioned loss to the CCL. 4. This document has been specifically denied by the respondents at para 13 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 06.12.2016. The other persons gave high weight measurement of the same trucks, which ought to have been considered for fixing separate accountability of negligence of individual employees, which may have occasioned loss to the CCL. 4. This document has been specifically denied by the respondents at para 13 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 06.12.2016. On the other hand petitioner has enclosed a document at Annexure-9 of the rejoinder to the supplementary counter affidavit being report dated 17.01.2004 containing the list of 36 trucks whose range of variation for the last 6 months were detected during inspection on 28.05.2003. This document was handed over to the petitioner and other delinquent employees to answer within 10 days. This document has been relied upon by the petitioner in support of his defence that petitioner has made acceptance only to the extent that there could well be differences in the tare weight of the trucks weighed at different points of time in the year. This however does not amounts to acceptance of misconduct but a statement of facts. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Respondent has taken the Court to the minutes of the disciplinary proceedings contained at Annexure-B series to the first counter affidavit where the petitioner and other delinquent employees on being questioned, gave specific answers to explain the variation in weight such as; the weight of diesel at different points of time in the vehicles; the vehicles being wet; vehicles carrying rejected spare parts, sometimes carrying stepney or without it etc. None of these employees disputed the variation of the weight but gave their own explanation. None of these employees including the petitioner refuted about their presence on the date of inspection and the measurements recorded in respect of 36 vehicles. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the proceedings do not suffer from any lack of compliance of procedure or violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore merits there of based on the evidence on record adduced during enquiry should not be gone into by this Court in exercise of powers of judicial review like an appellate body. The enquiry report in respect of the petitioner has taken into account the statements and cross examination of the persons including the petitioner and other co-workers and found them guilty of the charges. The enquiry report in respect of the petitioner has taken into account the statements and cross examination of the persons including the petitioner and other co-workers and found them guilty of the charges. In these circumstances, the disciplinary authority had proper reason to hold them liable for the misconduct proved against them. The punishment is neither disproportionate nor excessive calling for interference. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that charges under Clause 26.1 and 26.5 of Certified Standing Orders do not stand substantiated even on the basis of the entire material evidence on record. No case of theft or fraud has been proved neither any wilful neglect of the work. Charges against each individual employees ought to have been proved separately with specific findings of loss caused to the respondent CCL in order to bring home the charges. The enquiry report is therefore suffering from serious error in recording findings of guilt. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the materials pleading on record taken note above. Presence of the petitioner on the date of inspection at the Makoli Weigh Bridge is not in dispute. Variation of weight, as large as 560 Kg and as less as 80 Kg out of 36 trucks found during verification also do not stand disputed by the petitioner. The enquiry proceeding has been conducted giving due opportunity to the petitioner and apparently against other delinquent employees as well. Defence of the employees have also been considered. Such wide variation has been found to be inexplicable on such defence. This in itself would be a charge of dishonesty with employer''s business or wilful neglect of work, which stand proved during enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer has also held that none of the employees charge-sheeted denied variation of tare weight but gave their reasons for the variation as mentioned in the foregoing paragraph as well. However, examination of the records, register and weight cord revealed that variation of tare weight happened for the 36 trucks against which the charge sheet was issued. Many more trucks might have crossed from the same bridge where the variation may not be significant. In these circumstances, findings of misconduct was recorded against the petitioner. However, examination of the records, register and weight cord revealed that variation of tare weight happened for the 36 trucks against which the charge sheet was issued. Many more trucks might have crossed from the same bridge where the variation may not be significant. In these circumstances, findings of misconduct was recorded against the petitioner. Findings are based on material evidence on record and can''t be looked into like an appellate body in exercise of powers of this Court under judicial review. 9. Since the charges have been found to be established, petitioner has been imposed with the impugned punishment, which do not appear to be disproportionate or excessive to shock the conscience of the Court. Considered thus, no grounds are made out for interference in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.