Judgment 1. Petitioner who was working as Assistant Administrative Officer, in branch office Anantnag in Life Insurance Corporation of India, was charge sheeted on 07.06.2013 by Zonal Manager. Disciplinary proceedings under Regulation 39 of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, was initiated after charge sheet. The charge sheet reads as under: - Disciplinary Proceedings under Regulation 39 of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 And In the matter of Shri Abdul Rashid Wani, AAO S.R.No.155603, (Under Suspension) Branch Office Udhampur under Srinagar Division. Chargesheet You, Shri Abdul Rashid Wani, AAO, S.R.No. 155603, BO Udhampur under Srinagar Division are hereby charged as under:— 1. That, while working as AAO in BO Anantnag, you created fictitious masters under four S.S.S. policies bearing Nos. 140043002, 140043010, 140043231 & 140043232. Thereafter, being the member of core group, you shifted the F.U.P. of the above policies and as the in charge of P.S. Deptt., created fictitious policy bonds and applied for maturity payments. These payments were made in favour of your relatives or friends. You have also destroyed/ caused to destroy policy dockets and policy ledgers of the above policies. Also relevant page of Account IV Book in which entries for payments would have been made, was destroyed/ found missing. On being confronted with Branch Manager, you have deposited the amount as per following details:— Amt. Deposited MR. No. Cheque No. Bank Date Credit LIC Date of credit to LIC 1,63,283/- 425 15.03.2001 278715 SBI Anantnag 17.03.2001 1,65,700/- 46 02.06.2001 250317 SBI Anantnag 04.06.2001 1,58,200/- 118 25.08.2001 278719 SBI Anantnag 27.08.2001 1,58,200/- 119 25.08.2001 278720 SBI Anantnag 27.08.2001 2. You issued fake Income Tax Certificates to 58 policy holders by changing their names, using option of change of address of query module. (As per Annexure-A). 3. You drew an amount of Rs.25,000/- in cash for purchase of policy stamps on 20.08.2001. You also passed the voucher yourself for the said amount. However, you have not purchased any stamps and the amount was kept by you unauthorisedly. On the personal enquiry by Shri M. s. Rather, Branch Manager, BO Anantnag, you refunded Rs. 25,000/- in cash which was deposited in office vide MR No. 131 dated 11.09.2001. You also passed the voucher yourself for the said amount. However, you have not purchased any stamps and the amount was kept by you unauthorisedly. On the personal enquiry by Shri M. s. Rather, Branch Manager, BO Anantnag, you refunded Rs. 25,000/- in cash which was deposited in office vide MR No. 131 dated 11.09.2001. By your aforesaid acts, you have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, failed to serve the Corporation honestly & faithfully, acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Corporation & prejudicial to good conduct & thereby committed breach of Regulation 21 & 24 read with Regulation 39 (1) of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 for which anyone or more of the penalties specified under Regulation 39(1) (a) to (g) of the aforesaid (Staff) Regulations 1960 can be imposed on you. A provisional list of documents by which and a provisional list of witnesses through whom the charges are sought to be sustained are annexed herewith (Vide Annexure (c ) to the Charge Sheet. However, before proceeding further in the matter, you are hereby directed to state in writing, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this charge sheet as to whether you admit or deny the charges mentioned above. In case you admit the charges a statement of admission and in the event of your denying the charges, a statement of denial, together with a list of documents by which and a list of witnesses through whom you propose to defend your case may be submitted to the undersigned within the period stipulated herein above. In case your written statement alongwith a list of witnesses and documents as mentioned above is not received by the undersigned within the period stipulated or if your statement of denial is not found satisfactory, further proceedings in the matter shall ensue according to the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and other standing instructions. Dated at New Delhi this 7th day of June 2003 Zonal Manager (Disciplinary Authority) 2. From bare perusal of charge sheet, it is evident that three charges were framed. The petitioner, accordingly, filed reply to the charge sheet and denied the allegations levelled in the charge sheet. 3. Dated at New Delhi this 7th day of June 2003 Zonal Manager (Disciplinary Authority) 2. From bare perusal of charge sheet, it is evident that three charges were framed. The petitioner, accordingly, filed reply to the charge sheet and denied the allegations levelled in the charge sheet. 3. On 19.08.2003 Shri Pankaj Saxena, Manager (F&A) Divisional Office, Srinagar, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner with the above said charge sheet, as it was found from reply that petitioner has partially accepted the charges and partially has denied the charges. Inquiry proceedings, was accordingly started and enquiry officer concluded the same and filed a report in this regard on 26.04.2004. The relevant para of enquiry report reads as under:— Sh. A. R. Wani is alleged to have created fictitious masters under four S.S.S. policies bearing Nos. 140043002, 140043010, 140043231 & 140043232 and shifted the FUP of above policies and as in charge of P.S. deptt., created fictitious policy bond, applied for maturity payments for his relatives or friends. Ongoing through a sample of status reports from pol Nos. 140043000 to 140043015, they were pertaining to period of issuance from Jan 1991 to Mar 1991 i.e. F.Y. 1990 -91, whereas the DOC of pol. No. 140043002 is 28.02.90 and that of pol. No. 140043010 is 10.03.20 i.e. during F. Y. 1989-90 which is impossible since no policy can be dated back to the last financial year. It clearly proves tampering of record in r/o DOC of pol. Nos. 140043000 and 140043010. Besides, a committee of three senior officials during its visit to B.O Anantnag on 12.12.02 observed that as per extract of relevant Nira file and log file, the masters in r/o pol nos. 140043232, 140043002 & 1400430 were created on 16.08.2000, 4.9.2000 & 23.11.2000. Sh. A. R. was used users P.W No. 3 for creation of transfer in data entry on 04.-09.2000 & 23.11.2000 whereas he used users P.W No. 4 for satisfaction on 16.08.2000, 4.09.2000 & 23.11.2000. Despite above, Mr. A. R. Wani has denied his involvement but admitted that the masters were created on his password which was allowed by him to be used by temporary employed people in the branch. This argument seems baseless since they were nowhere beneficiary in the process and such fraudulent payments could not be made by careless mistakes by temporary people. A. R. Wani has denied his involvement but admitted that the masters were created on his password which was allowed by him to be used by temporary employed people in the branch. This argument seems baseless since they were nowhere beneficiary in the process and such fraudulent payments could not be made by careless mistakes by temporary people. As per the report submitted by Sh. M.S. Rather dated 24.10.200 Manager claims dated 23.07.02 & 25.08.01 and statements of Sh. Afroz Qayoom (the then Branch Manager, BO Anantnag), dated 23.4.01 & 21.2.04, it is observed tht a fraudulent payment under pol. No. 140043002 was detecting first and found that a wrong payment had been made to Sh. Nazir Ahmad Zargar who should have been an employee of J&K bank and a r/o Kullar as per policy records. But it was found on investigation that there was no such person name Nazir Ahmad Zayar at Kullar working in J&K Bank. In fact the payment of Rs. 1, 63, 283 as maturity claim of above policy was found made to one Nazir Ahmad Zargar C/o M/S Golden Watch Co. Anantnag. Mr. Nazir Ahamd Zargar vie his statement dated 20.11.03 19.11.03 & 7.11.03 was admitted that Mr. A. R. Wani was known to him and Mr. Wani deposited cheques of maturity proceeds under pol No.140043002 in the Bank A/C of Mr. N. A. Zargar. Mr. Zargar admitted having given bearer cheque of Rs. 150,000 to Mr. Wani towards refund of the maturity claim amount deposited in his A/c after deduction of an amount due to his shop. Though Mr. Wani denied having received any such payment, but signatures on the reverse of cheque No. 2911186 dt. 27.9.2000 pertains to mr. A.R. Wani, as confirmed by Mr. Rather, BM, Anantnag also and from different specimen signatures on the policy bond No. 140878978, 140879283, 14087939 and 140879770,140879349 (the latter fact admitted by A.R. Wani in hearing dt 6.11.2003). Mr. Afroz Qayoom, the then Branch manager, Anantnag, has given a statement dt. 21.02.20004 during hearing of the case that Mr. A.R. Wani, had agreed having done above fraud when confronted in March 2011 and deposited the same amount ei.e Rs. 163283 vide cheque No. 278715 of SBI Anantnag through M.R. No. 425 dt 15.03.2001. but Mr. A.R. Wani denied it at face during above hearing Mr. M.S. Rather also stated in above hearing that Mr. A.R. Wani, had agreed having done above fraud when confronted in March 2011 and deposited the same amount ei.e Rs. 163283 vide cheque No. 278715 of SBI Anantnag through M.R. No. 425 dt 15.03.2001. but Mr. A.R. Wani denied it at face during above hearing Mr. M.S. Rather also stated in above hearing that Mr. Wani had admitted having committed three more fraudulent payments, pleaded forgiveness and said those were the only mistakes/fraud he had committed. The second fraudulent payment was detected u/pol no.. 140043010 in the name of Gh.Mohi-ud-din who is reportedly uncle of Mr. A.R. Wani, Mr. Wani was denying above fact earlier but ultimately admitted in hearing on 19.12.2003 that Gh. Mohi-ud-din is the cousin of his wife. The third payment was made in the name of Shabir Ahmad Bhat u/pol No. 140043232, who is reportedly cousin of Mr. A.R. Wani (Brother of phupha of is wife). It was admitted by him in hearing on 19.12.2003. The fourth payment was made in the name of Mr. Bashir Ahmad Jan u/pol No. 140043231 who is reportedly a friend of Mr. Wani. Out of the amount of Rs. 158200 credited to the A/c of Bashir Ahmad jan on 24.08.2000, an amount of Rs. 15500 was transferred to the A/c of Mubarak Ahmad Wani, on 25.08.2000, driving of Mr. A.R. Wani, Mr. Wani also admitted in hearing on 6.11.2003 that he had official relations with him. Reportedly, the bank A/c No. 12119 in SBI, Anantnag of Mushtaq Ahmad Wani was operated by A. R. Wani, Mr. M. S. Rather BM Anantnag branch has confirmed in his report dated 03.03.04 from SB records that an amount of Rs. 2.5. lacs was withdrawn through Mr. Javed Ahmad vide cheque No. 240193 and a demand draft for Rs. 2,00,000 was repaired by Mr. A. R. Wani of OTTO Block Orthopedic India pvt. Ltd. This could be the same firm which provided artificial limb to Sh. A. R. Wani after his right-hand was crushed in an accident and the above could be payment towards the same. Besides above, if we go through the chronology of events in r/o above policies as narrated below it is amply clear to understand the intentions of the person involved and benefitted i.e. A. R. Wani. A. R. Wani after his right-hand was crushed in an accident and the above could be payment towards the same. Besides above, if we go through the chronology of events in r/o above policies as narrated below it is amply clear to understand the intentions of the person involved and benefitted i.e. A. R. Wani. Pol No. Name Master Created on Payment Made on Withdrawal Made on Recovery effected through M.R. on Recovery  though 140043002 Nazir Ahmad Zargar 04.09.2000 23.09.2000 28.09.2000 15.03.2001 A/c of A.R. Wani 140043010 Gh. Mohi-ud-din 23.11.2000 25.11.2000 04.06.2001 4.06.201 A/c of Gh. Mohi-ud-din 140043231 Bashir Ah. Jan 31.07.2000 20.08.2000 25.08.2000 25.08.2001 A/c of A.R. Wani 140043232 Shabir Ahmad Bhat 16.03.2000 20.08.2000 25.08.2000 25.08.2001 A/c of A.R. Wani It is evident that except for repayment under policy No. 140043010 which is made through A/c of Gh. Mohi-ud-din, all other repayments have been made by cheque through A/c of Mr. A.R. Wani vide his cheque nos. 278715, 278719 and 278720 of SBI, Anantnag. But Mr. A.R. Wani, has said in hearing on 9.10.2003 that amount towards wrong payments under above policies was recovered by me, being local and through legal/illegal means as well. It sounds quite contradictory. The only witness produced by A.R. Wani was Mr. Mohamamd Tahir Matoo on 23.02.04 from whom nothing could be extracted either in favour of or against Mr. A.R. Wani, Mr. A.R. Wani never admitted having made any fraudulent payment during the hearings but statements from Mr. Afroz Qayoom and M.S. Rather states that Mr. A.R. Wani had committed these frauds and when confronted, he admitted the fraud and made repayments through his A/c. While going through all the hearings facts brought to light, circumstantial evidences and witness/statements recorded, it is proved that A.R. Wani is the only person who remains beneficiary, directly or indirectly in the process of fraudulent payments and therefore he is found guilty. The second charge made against A.R. Wani, is that he issued fake I. Tax certificates to 58 policy holders by changing their names, using option of change of address of query module. But A.R. Wani, denied this charge on the ground that it might have been done by the temporary employees who were using his password. But Sh. The second charge made against A.R. Wani, is that he issued fake I. Tax certificates to 58 policy holders by changing their names, using option of change of address of query module. But A.R. Wani, denied this charge on the ground that it might have been done by the temporary employees who were using his password. But Sh. M.S. Rather has stated during hearing on 21.10.2003 and 21.02.2004 (endorsed by Afroz Qayoom, then B.M on 21.02.2004 also) that he notice A.R. Wani, changing name of one Dr. Abdul Rahim Wagay to Altaf, who was known to him and brought it to the notice of then B.M. Afrooz Qayoom as well as Sh. Karim, Sr. D.M. Mr. Qayoom reportedly called Mr. A.R. Wani, where he admitted to have committed the irregularity. Thereafter, his job of issuing I.T. Certificates was centralised to Bashir Ahmed Teli. Besides above, the address RFM list of B.O Anantnag dt 20.09.2001 containing 146 transactions also includes 58 fraudulent transactions effected by Sh. Wani under his password and changed the name of policy holders. All above evidence, statements amply prove Sh. A.R. Wani, quality of the second charge of issuing fake I.T certificates in 58 cases by changing names. The third charge against Sh. A.R. Wani is that he drew an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in cash for purchase of policy stamps on 29/08.2001 after passing the voucher himself but did not purchase any policy stamp and kept the amount unauthorisedly. On personal enquiry by Sh. M.S. Rather, then then B.A Ananatnag (after transfer of Afroz Qayoom) he refunded Rs. 25000/- in cash which was deposited vide M.R. No. 131 dt 11.09.2001 reportedly through one Mr. Tahir Mattoo. Though Mr. A.R. Wani has again denied above allegations but M.S. Rather, during hearing on 21.10.2003 and 21.02.2004 has stated that Mr. Wani had himself drawer cash for purchase of policy stamps worth Rs. 250,000/- (proved by the copy of voucher produced) but never purchased the same for office. When Mr. Rather reportedly confronted Mr. Wani for the same Mr. Wani admitted the same and since he was transferred to Udhampur BO by then he reportedly refunded the amount through Mr. Tahir Mattoo, his relative/agent of Mr. A.H. Jan, Dev. Officer (as stated during hearing on 23.02.2004) Reportedly Mr. Sofi, Dev. Officer was also witness to this as stated by MS. Rather during hearing on 21.10.2003. Wani admitted the same and since he was transferred to Udhampur BO by then he reportedly refunded the amount through Mr. Tahir Mattoo, his relative/agent of Mr. A.H. Jan, Dev. Officer (as stated during hearing on 23.02.2004) Reportedly Mr. Sofi, Dev. Officer was also witness to this as stated by MS. Rather during hearing on 21.10.2003. This circumstantially proves partially the third charge against Mr. A.R. Wani becase when mr. Wani himself entered and showed that the stamps consumed in stock register, why the other person should make refund of the amount. Mr. A.R. Wani himself has admitted during the hearing on 21.02.2004 that circumstantial evidence establishes him having committed the frauds. When one of the witness Sh. Bilal Ahmad Shah, ABM (s) B.O Anantnag was called for hearing, he informed that when he was posted to BO Anantnag in year 2001 only after Mr. A.R. Wani was already to B.O. Udhampur on 29.03.2001, therefore, was not witness to above frauds. Therefore, it is not found necessary to call him since he could not provide any material information. Besides this, the witnesses of Sh. Tariq Ahmad Sheikh, HGA Sh. Mushtaq Ahmad Rather, PG II, and Sh. S.S. Bali, R/c during hearing on 7.11.2003 and witness of Shr. G.M. Sofi, Dev. Officer, Mohammad Iqbal Taq, employee. Sh. G.H. Mohammad Sheikh, Mohammad Ahsraf Bhat, Dev. Officer in BM’s chamber in Anantnag on 19.11.2003 also together prove that Sh. A.R. Wani, had committed above frauds and he reportedly had agreed having committed frauds as stated by Tariq Ahmad Sheikh and M.A. Rather, PG II during hearing on 7.11.2003. Hence it is revealed from the documentary evidence, witnesses recorded during various hearings statements of staff and other related persons and all the circumstantial evidence available that Sh. A.R. Wani, is involved in all the three changes directly or indirectly and there is no other person who could possibly be the beneficiary in above payments except Sh. A.R. Wani. In light of above facts and as per detailed hearing in above case, I in my capacity as Enquiry Officer have come to the conclusion that the first two changes are established fully and the last change is partially established against A.R. Wani. Submitted for necessary approval. Pankaj Kumar Sexena Manager (F&A), DO Srinagar Enquiry Officer. 4. A.R. Wani. In light of above facts and as per detailed hearing in above case, I in my capacity as Enquiry Officer have come to the conclusion that the first two changes are established fully and the last change is partially established against A.R. Wani. Submitted for necessary approval. Pankaj Kumar Sexena Manager (F&A), DO Srinagar Enquiry Officer. 4. From the bare perusal of enquiry report it is evident that first two charges were found proved against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and third charge was partially established against him. Against the enquiry report, petitioner replied and taken stand which he took in his reply to charge sheet with some additional grounds stating that none of witness was cross examined by him and relevant documents were not supplied to him. After that, during disciplinary proceeding in terms of regulation 39 (1) (f) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 18.12.2004 to petitioner by disciplinary authority for filing reply within 15 days as to why he should not be held guilty of charges proved against him and why proposed penalty of removal be not imposed. Petitioner replied the same on 27.1.2005 and took almost same stand which he took previously; on 10.3.2005, in terms of Regulation 39(1) (f) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 the penalty of removal from service was imposed. The petitioner accordingly, filed an Appeal before the Competent Authority i.e. before Managing Director LIC of India against said order on the grounds that enquiry officer was biased; that inquiry officer has called the witness in pick and choose manner; that petitioner was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses. On 19.10.2005 appeal was dismissed on the grounds that petitioner was granted sufficient opportunity and finding of inquiry was based on relevant materials. 5. Counsel for the petitioner while arguing the matter has stated that petitioner was not heard during the enquiry and was not given an opportunity of cross examination the witness produced during the enquiry raised. The enquiry officer has taken pleas which he has taken in reply filed during the course of enquiry. 5. Counsel for the petitioner while arguing the matter has stated that petitioner was not heard during the enquiry and was not given an opportunity of cross examination the witness produced during the enquiry raised. The enquiry officer has taken pleas which he has taken in reply filed during the course of enquiry. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon SCC 2010 (2) 497 case titled C, Valkumari v Andhra education Society, where in it is held that non recording of reasons and non-compliance of rule of natural justice by Disciplinary authority would make the departmental inquiry was unsustainable ; 6. Whereas as counsel for the respondents has stated that enquiry was held strictly as per law and rules. Petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself but petitioner has admitted to be guilty. He further submitted that enquiry officer found petitioner guilty and thereafter penalty of removal from service has been imposed. The pleas raised by the petitioner is after thought and he has been only intention to create illusion that he has not been heard. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Rule 39 of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 reads as under:— Penalties: 39. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of other regulations, [any one or more of] the following Penalties for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed [by the disciplinary authority specified in Schedule-I]* on an employee who commits a breach of regulations of the Corporation, or who display negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of the Corporation, or conflicting with the instructions or who commits a breach of discipline, or is guilty of any other act prejudicial to good conduct— (a) Censure; *(b) Withholding of one or more increments either permanently or for a specified period; (c) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of order; (d) reduction to a lower service, or post, or to a lower time scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale; (e) Compulsory retirement; (f) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment; (g) Dismissal. (2) No order imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in clauses (b) to (g) of sub- regulation (1) supra, shall be passed by the disciplinary authority specified in Schedule I without the charge or charges being communicated to him in writing and without his having been given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such charge or charges and of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. (3) The disciplinary authority empowered to impose any of the penalties, (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) may itself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a board of enquiry or an enquiry officer for the purpose. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulations (1) and (2) above (i) where a penalty is imposed on an employee on the grounds of conduct which had led to a conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the authority concerned is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is not reasonably practicable to follow the procedure prescribed in this regulation; or (iii) where an employee has abandoned his post, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as it deems fit. *Explanations: 1. For the purpose of this regulation, an employee shall be deemed to have abandoned his post if he absents himself from duty without leave or overstays his leave for a continuous period of ninety days without any intimation therefor in writing. 2. All communications under this regulation and copies of orders passed thereunder may be delivered personally to the employee if he is attending office; otherwise they shall be sent by registered post to the address noted in the service record. Where such communications or copies of orders cannot be served on him personally or by registered post, copies thereof shall be affixed on the notice board of the office in which the employee is employed, and on such affixing such communications and orders shall be deemed to have been properly served on him. 08. From bare perusal of this regulation it is evident it provides complete procedure for framing of charges, conducting of inquiry and penalty to be imposed in case charges are proved. 09. 08. From bare perusal of this regulation it is evident it provides complete procedure for framing of charges, conducting of inquiry and penalty to be imposed in case charges are proved. 09. On care full consideration of inquiry report, it is evident that, it has been proved beyond doubts that petitioner was the only person who remained beneficiary, directly or indirectly in the process of fraudulent payments as mentioned in first charge. Similarly, petitioner was found guilty of the second charge of issuing fake Income Tax certificates in 58 cases by changing names; third charge was also proved partially. All these finding are based upon evidence produced during proceeding. There is no perversity in the finding of inquiry officer in these regard. Petitioner all remained present during proceeding; he never raised any objection during the preceding that he was not given proper hearing in the matter. The final order has been passed by Disciplinary authority for removal from service in terms of regulation 39(f) on 10.3.2005; Appellant authority has also upheld the order of removal of petitioner on 19.5.2005. 10. So now question arises for consideration as to whether in facts and circumstances of case, this court can review the finding of disciplinary authority, which is based on inquiry report after applying the procedure laid down in regulation 39 of LIC OF INDIA (STAFF) REGULATIIONS, 1960. Now it is settled law that so far as the departmental inquiry and action of competent authorities in removing the employee from the service is concerned judicial review cannot be extended to examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. Judicial review may be confined to see whether inquiry was conducted by competent officer /authority or whether rules of natural justice has been complied or whether conclusion has been based on no evidence or there is perversity in finding. When disciplinary enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and the petitioner was provided full opportunity of hearing, the decision taken by the disciplinary authority cannot be interfered in exercise of power of this Court under writ jurisdiction by High court. In the instant matter the decision making process cannot be said to be faulted. The petitioner received fair treatment and the orders have been rightly passed by the competent authority. 11. In 1992 Supp. In the instant matter the decision making process cannot be said to be faulted. The petitioner received fair treatment and the orders have been rightly passed by the competent authority. 11. In 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 312 H.B Gandhi Excise and taxation Officer –cum Assessing Authority Karnal and others v. M/S Gopi Nath & sons and others, it is held Relevant paragraph 8 is as under:— “8...... Judicial review, it is trite, is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision making process. Judicial review cannot extended to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision as a matter of fact. The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority after according fair treatment reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It will be erroneous to think that the Court sits in judgement not only on the correctness of the decision making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself.” 12. In 1995 (6) SCC 749 , B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, the Apex court reiterated the same. The relevant paragraphs 12 and 13 are as under:— “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.” “13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented. The appellate authority has co-extensive power to re-appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 781], this Court held at page728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.” In recent decisions the apex court has reiterated the scope of judicial review in dealing with departmental inquiries in 2009 (8) SCC 310 State of U.P. and another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and another. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and another. It has been held that it is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before inquiry officer and examine the finding recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusion by restoring the petition and sending the matter back to the High Court, it was observed that High Court fell into grave error in scanning evidence as if it was a court of appeal. In the said matter, the High Court while examining impugned order formulated the question for consideration as to whether in view of the evidence on record the charge levelled against the delinquent stood proved and further proceeded to appreciate the evidence and set aside the order of dismissal. Relevant paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 are as under:— “13. The aforesaid decisions were noticed by a Constitution Bench of this court in State of Madars V. G. Sundaram, and it has been held that it is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence before the Tribunal and record the conclusion that the evidence does not establish charges against the delinquent. In the words of the Constitution Bench: (AIR p. 1105, paras 9-10) “9. It is, therefore, clear that the High Court was not competent to consider the question whether the evidence before the Tribunal and the Government was insufficient or unreliable to establish the charge against respondent. It could have considered only the fact whether there was any evidence at all which, if believed by the Tribunal, would establish the charge against the respondent. Adequacy of that evidence to sustain the charge is not a quest before the High Court when exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This view was reiterated in Union of India V. H.C. Goel. 10. Adequacy of that evidence to sustain the charge is not a quest before the High Court when exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This view was reiterated in Union of India V. H.C. Goel. 10. It is, therefore, clear that the High Court was in error in re-appreciating the evidence before the Tribunal and recording the conclusion that evidence did not establish the charges against the respondent.” In T.N. C.S. Corporation Ltd. vs. K. Meerabai (2006) 2 SCC 255 the scope of In view of the above discussion and the fact that the petitioner had participated at every stage of the enquiry proceedings and the disciplinary authority also gave him personal hearing, irresistible conclusion is that the challenge made by the petitioner to the decision making process on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice in not providing the bank’s circulars is incorrect and an afterthought. The decision of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority is based on evidence on record and after due consideration to the defence taken by the petitioner. The Court cannot substitute the view taken by them. The law cited by counsel for petitioner is not applicable in present set of case, because petitioner was given sufficient and reasonable opportunity during proceedings. A public servant dealing with public money is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the public. In present case petitioner was dealing with money of policy holder; he was required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of policy holders; it was to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of officer in department of LIC. But he was charged of tempering, forging of I.T certificates and embezzlement of money of policy holders of LIC. In view of foregoing discussions, the decision taken by the respondent authorities cannot be said to be faulty. I do not find any good ground to interfere. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.