JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Two writ petitions were filed, W.P. (S) No. 6304 of 2014 challenging a part of the penalty order dated 20.07.2013 and the appellate order dated 31.10.2014 by which the 2nd phase promotion granted to the writ-petitioner under Career Advancement Scheme on the post of Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist has been withdrawn and W.P. (S) No. 6152 of 2014 was filed challenging that part of the aforesaid orders dated 20.07.2013 and 31.10.2014 by which appointment of the writ-petitioner on the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist (Extension & Social Forestry) has been cancelled. 2. By a common order dated 10.02.2017, both the writ petitions were allowed and the impugned orders dated 20.07.2013 and 31.10.2014 were quashed. 3. The appellant-Birsa Agricultural University is in appeal challenging the order dated 10.02.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6304 of 2014 and W.P. (S) No. 6152 of 2014. 4. Briefly stated, the writ-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as respondent) was appointed on 01.03.1984 as Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist in the Faculty of Forestry of Birsa Agricultural University and in course of time he was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist (Senior Scale). This promotion was granted to him on completion of 8 years of service. Subsequently, after completing 5 years of service in the Senior Scale the respondent was promoted to the post of Associate Professor-cum-Senior Scientist w.e.f. 01.03.1997. A selection process for appointment on the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist was initiated vide Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 and the respondent was selected for the “cadre post” of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist and the appointment letter dated 11.11.2005 was issued to him; he has tendered joining on the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist (Extension & Social Forestry) on 11.11.2005. About 4 years thereafter, a show-cause notice doubting the two certificates submitted by him for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) was issued to him. He submitted his reply to the show-cause notice dated 28.05.2009 and a departmental enquiry was instituted by constituting an enquiry committee in terms of Clause 13.9 of the Statute of Birsa Agricultural University. The respondent submitted his defence refuting the allegations in the charge-memo vide his letter dated 19.08.2009 and it appears that another enquiry committee was notified on 28.03.2011 which has submitted the enquiry report. 5. The respondent submitted his defence refuting the allegations in the charge-memo vide his letter dated 19.08.2009 and it appears that another enquiry committee was notified on 28.03.2011 which has submitted the enquiry report. 5. An enquiry report was submitted on 06.01.2012 in which the enquiry officer has found most of the charges duplicate, confusing and vague, however, he has found that the respondent did not take permission for pursuing the aforesaid two courses and the Computer Institutes from where he has obtained degree were not recognised by ICAR/UGC. 6. Responding to the 2nd show-cause notice dated 21.04.2012 which contained an allegation of producing forged computer certificates, the respondent took a stand that the charges framed against him in the departmental proceeding do not pertain to committing forgery and producing forged certificates. Finally, by an order dated 20.07.2013 the respondent was inflicted punishment of demotion from the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist to the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist and his appeal against the order of punishment dated 20.07.2013 was dismissed by an order dated 31.10.2014. 7. The aforesaid order of punishment and the appellate order were challenged by the respondent before the writ Court. 8. The following penalties are provided under sub-clause 2 of Clause 13.9 of the Statute of the Birsa Agricultural University: (2) The following are the minor and major penalties which may be imposed upon a University employee: (a) Minor penalties. (i) Censure. (ii) Withholding of increments including stoppage of an efficiency bar. (iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the University by negligence or breach of orders or any other act of commissions or omissions. (b) Major penalties (iv) Reduction to a lower post or to a lower stage in a time-scale of pay. (v) Removal from University service which does not ordinarily disability for any other employment in the University. (vi) Compulsory retirement. (vii) Dismissal from University service which ordinarily disqualifies for further employment in the University and involves ordinarily loss of all accrued financial benefits. 9. Mr. (v) Removal from University service which does not ordinarily disability for any other employment in the University. (vi) Compulsory retirement. (vii) Dismissal from University service which ordinarily disqualifies for further employment in the University and involves ordinarily loss of all accrued financial benefits. 9. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior counsel for the appellant-Birsa Agricultural University has made the following submissions: (i) the respondent who does not possess the essential qualifications in terms of Clause 2(vii)(d) was not entitled for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme and, therefore, has rightly been reverted to the lower post which would also affect his appointment on the post of Professor-cum-Chief Scientist (ii) the charges which have been found proved against the respondent justify the punishment of reduction to a lower post and cancellation of his appointment on the post of University Professor and, therefore, the writ Court's interference with the order of punishment is patently unsustainable and (iii) the employer-University has lost confidence in the respondent who has secured 2nd phase promotion under CAS for which he was otherwise not eligible. 10. 'Note' to the sub-clause (1) of Clause 13.9 of the Statute of the Birsa Agricultural University defines misconduct as under: NOTE: The misconduct for this purpose means: (i) willful disobedience or willful omission or negligence in executing any lawful orders or instructions. (ii) willful breach of trust and duty. (iii) demand, acceptance or receipt by the employee, in the discharge of his duties, by gift gratuity, reward or remuneration except in accordance with the University rules or orders, or express permission of the Vice Chancellor. (iv) indulging in unlawful activity or in political preaching among the students or employees of the University. (v) doing anything which undermines or is likely to undermine the presuge of the University or is detrimental to its interests or disturbs or is likely to disturb the harmony and cohesion of the University's corporate life. (vi) communicating any document or information, which has come into his possession in the course of discharge of his duties, without general or special permission of authorization directly or indirectly, to any person who is not entitled to receive such information or document. 11. In the departmental proceeding vide Memorandum dated 05.08.2009, the following charges were framed against the respondent: Article-I That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist while functioning as Asstt. Professor cum Jr. 11. In the departmental proceeding vide Memorandum dated 05.08.2009, the following charges were framed against the respondent: Article-I That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist while functioning as Asstt. Professor cum Jr. Scientist (Senior Scale) submitted on 07.03.1998 copies of two Computer Certificates, the diploma in Computer Application (July, 94-Dec, 1994) from Bhabha Computers, Patna and second certificate on Windows (25 Oct. 1996 to 17 Nov. 1996), Alitech Computer, 2, M.F. Ali waqf Market, Baripath, Patna-800006, India in place of two Summer Institute/refresher courses as an eligibility criteria of 2nd phase promotion to Assoc. Professor cum Senior Scientist under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). Article-II That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist while functioning as Asstt. Professor cum Junior Scientist submitted on 07.03.1998 the two computer certificates for his second phase promotion to the Associate Professor cum Senior Scientist which are not Summer Institute/Refresher courses. Article-III That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist while functioning as Asstt. Professor cum Jr. Scientist (Senior Scale) submitted on 07.03.1998 the Diploma on Computer Application and certificate on Windows which are not organized/sponsored/ approved/recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC)/Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Article-IV That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist while functioning as Asstt. Professor cum Jr. Scientist (Senior Scale) submitted certificates of Diploma on Computer Application and certificate on Windows for fulfilling the criteria of eligibility of Summer Institute/Refresher courses for promotion to Associate Professor cum Senior Scientist which were not obtained from the Govt. Institute/Organisation or ICAR/UGC recognized/accreditated Institute/Organisation. Article-V That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist during the period 1992-97 and while functioning as Asst. Professor cum Jr. Scientist participated in the Computer Courses i.e. Diploma in Computer Application and Certificate on Windows without sponsorship and permission of the Birsa Agricultural University. Article-VI That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist was given 2nd phase promotion from 1.3.1997 on the basis of the said two Computer Certificates (specified in Article I above) under CAS. Article-VII That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist while functioning as Asstt. Professor cum Junior Scientist was given study leave (27.1.93 to 10.4.95) only for doing Ph.D with full pay & allowances but Dr. Article-VII That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist while functioning as Asstt. Professor cum Junior Scientist was given study leave (27.1.93 to 10.4.95) only for doing Ph.D with full pay & allowances but Dr. Quli registered for Diploma Course in Computer Application beside the Ph.D without permission of Birsa Agricultural University at the cost of university salary & study leave during the same period. (July 94 to Dec. 1994) and later submitted on 07.03.1998 both the certificates i.e. Ph.D. degree and Diploma in Computer Application as eligibility criteria of Career Advancement Scheme and took the benefit of both to get promotion from Asstt. Professor Cum Jr. Scientist (Senior Scale) to Associate Professor cum Sr. Scientist. Article-VIII That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist during the period 1.3.1992 to 28.2.1997 while functioning as Asstt. Professor cum Jr. Scientist (Senior Scale) spent only 2 years and about 10 months (1.3.92 to 26.1.93 and 11.4.95 to 28.2.97) doing university service at Birsa Agricultural University and the rest of period (27.1.93 to 10.4.95) was spent by Dr. Quli doing Ph.D. Degree at Patna on study leave and he was promoted to Associate Professor cum Senior Scientist under Career Advancement Scheme of UGC/ICAR adopted by the University by assessing the period of 5 years as Asstt. Professor-cum Jr. Scientist (Senior Scale) from 1.3.92 to 28.2.97. Article-IX That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist was promoted to Associate Professor cum Sr. Scientist w.e.f. 1.3.1997 only in 5 years instead of 8 years after his promotion to Asstt. Professor cum Jr. Scientist (Senior Scale) in 1.3.1992 ignoring completely the UGC/ICAR guidelines of 1988 and eligibility criteria of “Complete 8 years of service in the senior scale (i.e. Asstt. Professor cum Jr. Scientist, Senior Scale) provided that the requirement of 8 years will be relaxed if the total service of the Lecture/Asstt. Prof. is not less than 16 years” Dr. Quli joined BAU service on 1.3.1984, therefore, he had only 13 years of service on 1.3.1997 and not 16 year as per requirement. Article-X That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist was given 2nd phase promotion to Associate Professor cum Sr. Scientist w.e.f. 1.3.1997 which has not been verified/endorsed by the State Govt. of Jharkhand, Deptt. Of Agril. & Cane Development.” 12. Article-X That the said Dr. S.M.S. Quli, University Professor cum Chief Scientist was given 2nd phase promotion to Associate Professor cum Sr. Scientist w.e.f. 1.3.1997 which has not been verified/endorsed by the State Govt. of Jharkhand, Deptt. Of Agril. & Cane Development.” 12. The eligibility for promotion to the post of Reader from the post of Lecturer in the Senior Scale under Clause 2(vii) of the Career Advancement Scheme is as under: 2. (vii) Every Lecturer in the Senior Scale will be eligible for promotion to the post of Reader in the scale of Rs. 3700-5700 if he/she has: (a) Completed 8 years in the Senior Scale provided that the requirement of 8 years will be relaxed if the total service of the lecturer is not less than 16 years. (b) Obtained a Ph.D. degree. (c) Made some mark in the areas of scholarship and research as evidenced by self-assessment, reports of referees, quality of publications, contribution to educational renovation, design of new courses and curricula, etc. (d) Participated in two refresher courses/summer institutes each of approximately 4 weeks duration, or engaged in other appropriate continuing education programmes of comparable quality as may be specified by the UGC, after placement in the Senior Scale. (e) Consistently good performance appraisal reports. 13. Powers of the writ Court to interfere with the order of punishment are limited. In exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the writ Court does not interfere with the conclusions of the departmental authorities. In State of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975) 2 SCC 557 , it has been held that the High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a Court of Appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. By now, it is well-settled that it is not sufficiency of evidence which can be examined by the High Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If it is found that an authority legally vested with the powers has arrived at a conclusion which is reasonably supported by the evidence led during the departmental enquiry, the High Court would not exercise its powers in a manner as if it is a Court of Appeal. 14. Mr. If it is found that an authority legally vested with the powers has arrived at a conclusion which is reasonably supported by the evidence led during the departmental enquiry, the High Court would not exercise its powers in a manner as if it is a Court of Appeal. 14. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the penalty order which is founded on an allegation of forgery which was not a charge framed against the respondent has been passed in breach of the rules of natural justice and the respondent, who has been denied opportunity to cross-examine Prashant Kumar who has allegedly conducted an enquiry and found the Computer Institutes non-existent, has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself. It is contended that the entire departmental proceeding stands vitiated on account of procedural irregularities committed during the enquiry in which neither the documents were furnished to the respondent nor he was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. 15. It is not in dispute that from 27.01.1993 to 10.04.1995 the respondent was granted study leave for pursuing Ph.D course. The respondent claims that during this period he has pursued the aforesaid computer courses. A plea has been raised by Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the respondent that under the Statute or any circular/notification/guidelines of the University there is no bar for a teacher to pursue another course, while he is on study leave. We do not accept this argument for the reason that if the degree obtained by the respondent is relevant for grant of promotion to him, while on study leave for pursuing Ph.D. course he could not have pursued another course without seeking permission of the University. Not only that, conduct of the respondent touches upon the propriety; improper conduct of an employee would constitute misconduct. It is widely accepted that there are unwritten rules of propriety for a government servant. 16. The charges framed against the respondent that: (i) the computer certificates produced by him are not of summer institute/refresher course, (ii) not approved by the UGC/ICAR, (iii) not obtained from the government institute/organisation/ accredited institute/ organisation, are not denied by him. It also stands uncontroverted that he has obtained those certificates without sponsorship or permission of the Birsa Agricultural University and that he was granted 2nd phase promotion from 01.03.1997 on the basis of those two certificates. It also stands uncontroverted that he has obtained those certificates without sponsorship or permission of the Birsa Agricultural University and that he was granted 2nd phase promotion from 01.03.1997 on the basis of those two certificates. These facts unerringly put the respondent on notice that those certificates were not valid certificates. During the course of arguments, Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the application submitted by the respondent along with which the two computer certificates were produced by him, to contend that the respondent never made a false representation or misled the University rather on proper scrutiny of his certificates he has been granted the 2nd phase promotion under Career Advancement Scheme and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has produced a forged certificates. May be it is not written in the charge-memo in so many words that the respondent has obtained those certificates by playing fraud but what remains not denied by him that those certificates were obtained by him from the Institutes not recognised by the UGC/ICAR and thus, not valid. 17. In a departmental proceeding the departmental authorities are required to weigh the evidences led by both the parties. It is fundamental in law that the preponderance of probability which is the test in a departmental proceeding would be examined by weighing evidences led by both the parties. The basic distinction between a departmental proceeding and the criminal trial is that in a criminal trial except in cases where a statutory presumption has been raised the accused is not required to lead evidence, however, in a departmental proceeding the delinquent-employee is required to produce evidence. It is not necessary that the delinquent-employee must in all cases lead evidence, but then, if the department has led some evidence against the delinquent-employee and he does not lead any evidence in defence, an adverse inference may be drawn against him on the “fact in issue.” Of course, there may be cases in which the delinquent-employee without leading any evidence may successfully demonstrate from the evidences led by the department that the charge framed against him is not proved. There can be another kind of cases; cases of “no evidence” in which also the delinquent-employee may not lead any evidence but still successfully plead that the charge framed against him has not been proved. But, the present case is not one such case. There can be another kind of cases; cases of “no evidence” in which also the delinquent-employee may not lead any evidence but still successfully plead that the charge framed against him has not been proved. But, the present case is not one such case. The respondent has failed to produce any evidence to contradict and controvert the charges framed against him and on the basis of the evidences led by the University during the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer has found the charges of producing certificates from the Institutes not recognised by UGC/ICAR and without taking permission of the University proved. 18. On the plea raised by the respondent that he was denied an opportunity to cross-examine Prashant Kumar who has submitted a report that the two Computer Institutes from where he has produced computer certificates are non-existent, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that about 15-20 years after the respondent completed the course and obtained degree without affording an opportunity to him to cross-examine Prashant Kumar it cannot be concluded that those Computer Institutes were non-existent. 19. At the first blush this contention appears to be attractive but on deeper probe of the facts we find no substance in it. Before the writ Court it was pleaded by the appellant-University that it was the respondent who, infact, has always avoided to appear before the enquiry officer and lead evidence in his support. The appellant-University has produced letters dated 01.06.2011, 06.06.2011 and 13.06.2011 to assert that the respondent did not appear in the domestic enquiry inspite of several notices issued to him. The appellant-University has also produced letter dated 13.06.2011 which was replied by the respondent vide his letter dated 16.06.2011 seeking adjournment in the departmental proceeding on account of illness of his wife, however, thereafter also he did not appear in the domestic enquiry and on 03.08.2011 he has again requested for an adjournment. The appellant-University has pleaded before the writ Court that when the respondent did not co-operate with the departmental enquiry, finding no option an enquiry report was submitted on 06.01.2012. These facts were not controverted by the respondent. The charges framed against him are clear and it was open to the respondent to produce some evidence on existence of those Computer Institutes from where he has obtained the computer certificates. These facts were not controverted by the respondent. The charges framed against him are clear and it was open to the respondent to produce some evidence on existence of those Computer Institutes from where he has obtained the computer certificates. This has not been done by him at any stage and now he cannot be permitted to take a dig on the procedure adopted by the departmental authorities. 20. By now it is well-settled that even after proper notice to him if the delinquent-employee fails to participate in the departmental enquiry it is legal and proper for the departmental authority to proceed in the matter and pass appropriate order, Major U.R. Bhatt vs. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1344 . 21. A glance at the impugned order dated 20.07.2013 reveals a reference to spot verification by Prashant Kumar and a report dated 21.05.2011, however, we find that this was duly brought to the notice of the respondent through second show-cause notice dated 21.04.2012. The second paragraph of the order dated 20.07.2013 makes it abundantly clear that this was not the only piece of evidence on the basis of which the respondent has been inflicted punishment of reduction from the post of University Professor-cum-Chief Scientist to the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist. There is an enquiry report and an adverse finding againt the respondent by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has found that the respondent did not take permission of the department to pursue the computer courses namely, Diploma in Computer Applications and Certificate on Windows and the certificates produced by him were not recognised by UGC/ICAR. This is precisely the charge framed against him. This charge pertains to grant of 2nd phase promotion under Career Advancement Scheme to the respondent. In our opinion, once this charge has been found proved the learned writ Court has committed an error in law in interfering with the order of punishment dated 20.07.2013. Reliance on the judgment in Ramesh Chandra vs. Delhi University and Others, (2015) 5 SCC 549 and Hussain Sasan Saheb Kaladgi vs. State of Maharashtra, (1988) 4 SCC 168 , by the learned counsel for the respondent is misplaced. These cases are clearly distinguishable on facts. The decision in “Hussain Sasan Saheb Kaladgi” that the one who is a directly recruited employee cannot be reverted to a lower post, is not applicable in the present case. These cases are clearly distinguishable on facts. The decision in “Hussain Sasan Saheb Kaladgi” that the one who is a directly recruited employee cannot be reverted to a lower post, is not applicable in the present case. In “Hussain Sasan Saheb Kaladgi” the delinquent was a direct recruit whereas the present respondent while in service has been appointed on a “cadre post” may be pursuant to Advertisement No. 01 of 2004, but his proved misconduct would affect his appointment on the post of Professor. On reversion from a back-date, we are of the opinion that on a technical plea a delinquent who has suffered an adverse enquiry report cannot escape the punishment. 22. In the above facts and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 10.02.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6304 of 2014 and W.P. (S) No. 6152 of 2014 is unsustainable and, accordingly, it is set-aside. The writ petitions are dismissed and the order of punishment dated 20.07.2013 is restored. 23. L.P.A. No. 241 of 2017 and L.P.A. No. 242 of 2017 are allowed.