JUDGMENT : 1. Respondents in all the three appeals are the petitioners in the writ petitions and the appellants herein are the respondents. Parties are referred to as per their ranks before the learned Single Judge. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1951 of 2008 was appointed as Dying Master by the respondent No.1 in the year 1980. He was promoted on 19.03.1994 as Manager (Processing) and he was appointed to work under the Chief Manager (Processing), Priyadarshini Textile Processing House ('PTPH' for short), Peenya II Stage, Bengaluru. On 30.11.1996, the Chief Manager (Processing) handed over the charge of his office under the orders of respondent No.2. Since then, petitioner was discharging the duties of Chief Manager (Processing) also. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2797 of 2008 was appointed as First Division Clerk by the respondent No.1 in the year 1977. He was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer in the month of December 1995 and since then he was working in Priyadarshini Textile Processing House, Peenya II Stage, Bengaluru. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1950 of 2008 was appointed as First Division Clerk by the respondent No.1 in the year 1976. He was promoted as Deputy Manager (Accounts) in the month of 1997 and since then he was working in Priyadarshini Textile Processing House, Peenya II Stage, Bengaluru. Certain allegations were made against the petitioners that there were irregularities in purchase of coal required for processing unit at PTPH, Bengaluru and he was placed under suspension. Subsequently, an article of charge was framed and communicated to the petitioners alleging that the coal collected by M/s. Vinayak Translines which was appointed as the Masoning and transporter for collecting and transporting the coal from Singareni Coal Mines, Hyderabad CSCCL' for short) and that no action was taken initially. Though coal collected from SCCL has not been delivered and there were shortage in the coal collected from the SCCL and delivered to PTPH, Peenya, Bangalore. It was also alleged that instead of procuring the quality coal from SCCL, local purchase of coal of inferior quality were made at a higher rates which has resulted in loss to PTPH, Bengaluru. The petitioners denied the charges. One Sri. K.V. Vasudeva Murthy, Retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioners. The petitioners denied the charges. One Sri. K.V. Vasudeva Murthy, Retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioners. The Inquiring Authority held that out of 12 charges, charge Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 11 were proved and charge Nos.5, 7, 9 and 12 were held to be not proved and submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice calling upon the petitioners to reply to the findings of the inquiry report. Petitioners submitted their reply to the show-cause notice. Disciplinary Authority after considering the report of the Inquiring Authority and reply submitted by the petitioners, passed an order of penalty of compulsory retirement and ordered for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,31,179.75, each from the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1951 of 2008 and Writ Petition No.2797 of 2008 and Rs.76,547.75 from the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1950 of 2008, vide order dated 05.08.2003. Petitioners aggrieved by the order of compulsory retirement and recovery of alleged loss, preferred separate appeals before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 after re-appreciating the material on record, rejected the appeals filed by petitioners, vide order dated 26.12.2003. Petitioners aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority and order of Appellate Authority filed separate writ petitions in Writ Petition Nos.6528, 27793 and 27881 of 2004. The learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petitions vide common order dated 15.12.2006, by setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remitted the matter back to respondent No.1 for consideration afresh and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. But, the respondent No.1 did not pass orders within the said period of five months and sought for extension of time till 30.09.2007, which was granted by this court. In the meantime, on 24.08.2007, the respondent No.1, in its 180th Board Meeting, passed a resolution to reject the appeals of the petitioners, which was communicated to the petitioners by respondent No.2, vide Office Order No.KHDC/ADM/32/2003/ 217 dated 24.09.2007. Petitioners aggrieved by the said resolution passed on 24.08.2007, filed separate writ petitions in Writ Petition Nos.1951 of 2008, 2797 of 2008 and 1950 of 2008 to quash the impugned resolution passed by respondent No.1 and to quash the order dated 24.09.2007, issued by respondent No.2. Petitioners aggrieved by the said resolution passed on 24.08.2007, filed separate writ petitions in Writ Petition Nos.1951 of 2008, 2797 of 2008 and 1950 of 2008 to quash the impugned resolution passed by respondent No.1 and to quash the order dated 24.09.2007, issued by respondent No.2. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions in part, vide common order dated 14.12.2011. The respondents aggrieved by the said order, have filed the present writ appeals. 3. Heard arguments of learned counsels. 4. The petitioners while working in the respondent-Corporation have committed irregularities in purchase of coal required for processing unit at PTPH, Bengaluru. Common charges were issued to the petitioners, which reads as under: (1) Procedure/guidelines issued from the Head Office as regards receiving coal from SCCL and others, vide IOL, NO. KHDC/JMD/N(IA)97/3538, dated 10.10.1996, (2) It was his duty to ensure receiving of coal at PTPH, in the presence of committee consisting of three members, but it was not done. (3) M/s. Vinayaka Translines, which was a Liaisoning agent of KHDC to transport of coal, lifted coal of 292:980 metric tones worth Rs. 3,79,983/- from SCCL, but this was not delivered to PTPH. This D.O. Did not initiate any action against this liaisoning agent and also did not inform his higher officers about this failure to deliver the coal, (4) A quantity of 131 M.T. Of coal worth Rs. 1,84,000/- was allotted by SCCL during 1999 to 31.7.2001 but this is not delivered to PTPH. M/s. Vinayaka Translines has failed to discharge its duties and this D.O. Has not initiated any action, (5) The said liaison Agent delivered 293.535 M.T. Of LOCAL COAL instead of the coal from SCCL. This D.O. Accepted without verification of documents and the quality of coal. Also he did not verify whether the coal is supplied in sealed lories or not. (6) This D.O. Went on purchasing LOCAL COAL of 234.471 M.T. Worth Rs. 629901.10/- from local dealers by paying higher reate and without initiating action against the liaisoning agent for not delivering the coal in time. (7) This D.O. accounted payment of Rs.304907.65/- towards transportation charges for procuring LOCAL COAL by the said liaisoning agent and not delivering to PTPH, this payment is as if this coal is lifted from SCCL. 629901.10/- from local dealers by paying higher reate and without initiating action against the liaisoning agent for not delivering the coal in time. (7) This D.O. accounted payment of Rs.304907.65/- towards transportation charges for procuring LOCAL COAL by the said liaisoning agent and not delivering to PTPH, this payment is as if this coal is lifted from SCCL. (8) Inspite of a letter of ND of Mother Dairy, Bangalore stating that the performance of M/s. Vinayaka Translines is bad, this D.O. continued services in collusion with that agency and with a dishonest intention to make unlawful personal gains to himself and loss to KHDC. (9) This D.O. made fresh deposit with SCCL, every time without verifying whether the coal in respect of which earlier deposits were made are received or not. (10) Invoices have not been collected even after years, accounts have not been reconciled, no action was initiated on having not received large quantity of coal and higher officers were not informed. (11) Audit report dated 26.11.96 reveals that the coal lifted from SCCL in sealed lories was replaced by a different coal lorry, which was not sealed and coal so supplied was accepted by this D.O. (12) In the year 1996, coal lifted by M/s. Venkateswara Coal Corporation transport contractors, from SCCL was not delivered to PTPH but subsequently different quality of coal was supplied, which this D.O. accepted without verification. (13) This D.O. conducted himself in a gross negligent and careless manner in discharge of his official duties as stated in the aforesaid charges, willfully violated the procedures laid down in respect of procurement of coal from SCCL, through the liaisoning agent, by colluding with this agent because of it KHDC sustained a loss of Rs.878573.81. (14) My SCCL levied additional 4$ CST for not submitting C Form in the bill No.068/1/2/04/0241 dated 20.04.2001 for rs.2803 and bill No.068/1/2/05/0120 dated 31.05.2001 for Rs.6925.16 and this D.O. is responsible for this loss as he failed to submit the C form. (15) These aforesaid acts, lapses, on the part of this D.O. amounts to misconduct on his part for which he is liable for disciplinary actions. Joint inquiry was held. The Inquiring Authority after considering the material placed on record held that charge No.1 to 4, 6, 8 and 11 were held to be proved and charge Nos.5, 7, 9 and 12 were held to be not proved. Joint inquiry was held. The Inquiring Authority after considering the material placed on record held that charge No.1 to 4, 6, 8 and 11 were held to be proved and charge Nos.5, 7, 9 and 12 were held to be not proved. The misconduct established was extremely grave and the petitioners have acted fraudulently leading to severe loss for the respondent- Corporation. 5. The learned Single Judge failed to consider that, imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. 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 on the nature of punishment. 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. 6. The question is, whether the learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. We would like to place reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Bidyabhujshan Mohapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779 wherein it is held as under: "......But the Court, in a case in which an order of dismissal of a public servant is impugned, is not concerned to decide whether the sentence imposed, provided it is justified by the rules, is appropriate having regard to the gravity of the misdemeanour established. The reasons which induce the punishing authority, if there has been an enquiry consistent with the prescribed rules, are not justiciable: nor is the penalty open to review by the Court. If the order of dismissal may be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed, it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. The Court has not jurisdiction if the findings of the enquiry Officer or the Tribunal prima facie make out a case of misdemeanour, to direct the authority to reconsider that order because in respect of some of the findings but not all, it appears that there had been violation of the rules of natural justice." 7. The Court has not jurisdiction if the findings of the enquiry Officer or the Tribunal prima facie make out a case of misdemeanour, to direct the authority to reconsider that order because in respect of some of the findings but not all, it appears that there had been violation of the rules of natural justice." 7. It may be open for the Appellate Authority to interfere with it, but not to the High Court or Administrative Tribunal for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review. It is not an appeal for decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order, at paragraph-10, has held as under: "10. The learned counsel for the respondents however, would admit that total number of loads that were delivered and which the petitioners were required to monitor were almost 300 and each load of coal is worth Rs.2,35,000/- and the loss that is occasioned according to the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of the entire quantity was little over a sum of Rs.1,84,000/- and the same has been recovered from these petitioners proportionately. In that view of the matter, imposing the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement is certainly disproportionate to the charges proved. Consequently, though it would be for the employer to decide the quantum of punishment even if this Court were to form an opinion that the punishment is disproportionate, having regard to the stand of the respondents and in the light of the fact that a Committee was set-up to consider the issue as to whether the petitioners should be visited with the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement or otherwise. On the basis of which the punishment is imposed, it is predictable that the petitioners would be imposed the very punishment. Therefore, it is appropriate that the punishment be modified by this Court in order to shorten the litigation and alleviate the misery of these petitioners. Accordingly, second and third of the petitioners in these petitions shall be reinstated into service without backwages." 8. We find that the reasoning is wholly unsupportive. Punishment cannot be modified to" shorten the litigation and alleviate the misery of the petitioner". Accordingly, second and third of the petitioners in these petitions shall be reinstated into service without backwages." 8. We find that the reasoning is wholly unsupportive. Punishment cannot be modified to" shorten the litigation and alleviate the misery of the petitioner". The reasons are neither relevant nor germane to modify the punishment. In view of the gravity of misconduct, the petitioners having been found that they have violated the guidelines for procurement of goods, failed to ensure delivery of 151 metric tons of coal from SCCL and further failed to initiate appropriate action against non-supply of coal and purchased 237 metric tons from local dealers at a higher price and failed to verify the documents in regard to the transactions and generally conducted themselves negligently causing monitory loss. Petitioners being responsible officers in the respondent-Corporation have acted fraudulently leading to severe loss. The learned Single Judge, without considering the gravity of misconduct, moulded the relief and passed the impugned order. We are of considered opinion that interference by the learned Single Judge with imposition of punishment was wholly unwarranted. 9. The learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Ramana vs. APSRTC and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 338 , wherein, at paragraph- 12, it is held as under: "To put it differently unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed." 10. From a bare perusal of records, it is clear that the instant case does not fall under exceptional or rare case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that, to shorten the litigation, it may in exceptional and rare case, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support there of. In the present case, we do not find any exceptional and rare case and further, learned Single Judge has not recorded proper reasons to modify the order of penalty. 11. For the reasons stated above, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order. In the present case, we do not find any exceptional and rare case and further, learned Single Judge has not recorded proper reasons to modify the order of penalty. 11. For the reasons stated above, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The writ appeals are allowed. The order dated 14.12.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 1951 of 2008 connected with Writ Petition No. 2797 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 1950 of 2008, is set aside. The writ petitions are dismissed.