ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, A.C. to G.A.V for the respondents. 2. The petitioner preferred this writ petition for quashing the office order dated 09.04.2011 and for quashing the office order dated 30.09.2009. 3. The petitioner was appointed and joined on the post of Amin on 26.04.1983 on compassionate ground and was promoted to the post of Amin Inspector by order dated 17.01.1998. The petitioner was transferred from Amin Inspector Hazaribagh West Division to Amin Inspector Chatra North Division by office order dated 14.06.2005. Subsequently, the petitioner was again transferred from Chatra North Division to Giridih Forest Division by letter dated 26.05.2006. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 28.12.2006 wherein it is alleged that there is allegation of altercation and manipulation in the map of village Sijhua P.S. Ichak, against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was put under suspension on 13.03.2007 by the Conservator of Forest, Hazaribagh Circle, Hazaribagh. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P.(S) No. 4162 of 2007 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench in L.P.A. being L.P.A. No. 197 of 2008 whereby the Hon’ble Division Bench disposed of the L.P.A. with certain observations and held that the order of suspension dated 13.03.2007 which continued till 17.04.2008 was not passed by the controlling and/or competent authority and, thus, it was a nullity right at the inception. Accordingly, the period of suspension stands regularized and the appellant will be entitled to full salary for the period from 13.03.2007 to 17.04.2008 after deducting the amount already paid towards subsistence allowance during the aforesaid period of suspension. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with another charge sheet dated 10.04.2008 wherein allegation of manipulation and altercation in the master copy of the map of the village Aradidri, villages Aradhar, Kandadag, Adar, Basia, Navadih Kala, Dourwa and Dyiyaghi of Barhi P.S. against this petitioner was leveled. In both the departmental proceedings separate Enquiry Officer was appointed and separate Enquiry Report has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner has participated in both the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority looking into the enquiry report passed the order dated 30.09.2009 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the services. In both the departmental proceedings separate Enquiry Officer was appointed and separate Enquiry Report has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner has participated in both the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority looking into the enquiry report passed the order dated 30.09.2009 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from the services. The petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority which was also dismissed by order dated 09.04.2011. 5. Aggrieved with these two orders, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the findings of the Forest Divisional Officer it is stated that it is difficult to point out the specific person who has over written on the documents. Further, by drawing the attention of the Court at Annexure-13 of the writ petition, which is a letter dated 17.06.97, submits that it has been clearly mentioned in paragraph 2 of this letter that the petitioner cannot be held liable for altercation and manipulation in the map. She further submits that the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law as it has been passed by a person who is not competent to pass the same. 6. Per contra Mr. Agrawal, learned A.C. to G.A.-V submits that the petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry, all opportunities have been provided to the petitioner and after going through the material on record, the Enquiry Officer has submitted its report and there is no illegality so far as the enquiry proceeding is concerned. The competent authority has passed the order taking into account the material put before the competent authority and also on perusing the enquiry report, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. He further submits that when it was found that the manipulation in the map of village Sizhua was found, a committee was constituted by the Divisional Forest Wild Life division and it was given a task of doing enquiry of forest map as well as carry out field verification. The said committee submitted its report and on perusal of the said report, it was found that 29.17 acres of forest land was shown out of the forest land, the too, by this petitioner, who was posted as Amin at that relevant point of time. The said committee submitted its report and on perusal of the said report, it was found that 29.17 acres of forest land was shown out of the forest land, the too, by this petitioner, who was posted as Amin at that relevant point of time. Therefore, the First Information Report against the petitioner has been registered as Hazaribagh Sadar Police Station Case No. -675/2006 dated 20.11.2006 under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was made sole accused in the First Information Report. He submits that in respect of Manipulation of the forest of the villages Aradhari, Kandadag, Adar Basia, Navadih Kala, Dourwa and Dyiyaghi of Barhi P.S. received from public a separate committee for enquiry has been constituted to thoroughly examine and enquire into manipulation made in the maps and records as well as to do the field enquiry. Since, the matter related to several villages, the committee took more time to submit its report. In course of enquiry by the said committee, it was found that 198.53 acres of forest land from the above mentioned villages had been shown as released land in the master copy of forest land. This committee also submitted its report on 08.01.2007 and on the basis of a allegation and facts again another First Information Report was lodged which was registered as Hazaribagh P.S. Case No. 471/2008 dated 27.05.2008 under sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 469, 471 & 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. In this First Information Report also the petitioner was sole accused. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was provided full opportunity of being heard and there is no violation of principle of audi alterm partem. This Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A reference in this regard be made in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao reported in 1975 (2) SCC 557 para 21 which reads as under:- 21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of A. P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao. Chitra Venkata Rao reported in 1975 (2) SCC 557 para 21 which reads as under:- 21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with departmental inquiries has come up before this Court. Two propositions were laid down by this Court in State of A. P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao. First, there is no warrant for the view that in considering whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct charged against him, the rule followed in criminal trials that an offence is not established unless proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule be not applied by a domestic Tribunal of inquiry the High Court in a petition under Article-226 of the Constitution is not competent to declare the order of the authorities holding a departmental inquiry invalid. The High Court is not a Court of Appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authorities entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226. Accordingly, this Court is not entering into method of enquiry so far as the departmental proceeding is concerned. However, the order of the Division Bench passed in L.P.A. No. 197 of 2008 cannot be over looked. Wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the suspension order was issued by Conservator of Forest South Circle Hazaribagh who is not a competent authority. Accordingly, that order was held to be nullity. At that time the petitioner was posted in Giridih Circle wherein the impugned order has been passed by the same officer who has passed the suspension order, which held to be nullity by the Division Bench of this Court. In view of the order passed by the Division Bench this writ petition succeeds on the ground that impugned order was not passed by the competent authority and the same authority has passed the punishment order who earlier passed the suspension order. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents authorities who will pass the order afresh in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition has been allowed in part. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 9. Accordingly, I.As., if any, stands disposed of.