JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Vyas, J. D.B. Civil Misc Application No. 81/2021 1. Delay of 1959 days in filing this appeal, is condoned. Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands disposed of. D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 138/2021 2. By this appeal, challenge has been made to the order of learned Single Judge dated 21.07.2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant, was dismissed. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the writ petition were that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Conductor in the respondent Corporation by order dated 09.11.2011. The petitioner joined his duties on 16.11.2011. It is the case of petitioner that he had worked hard in performance of his duties with sincerity, dedication and satisfaction, despite that he was harassed by issuance of several charges-sheets against him. He was also punished in some of the charge-sheets which had been issued against him. Thereafter show-cause notice dated 18.10.2013 for carrying passengers without ticket on 29.08.2012 and 10.09.2012, was issued. He was not given any opportunity of hearing. The inquiry was conducted ex parte and without complying with the rules of natural justice. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report and found him guilty of the charges of carrying passengers without ticket. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 10.01.2014, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated from the post of Conductor. The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal without any application of mind and without taking into consideration the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner-appellant. Hence, the writ petition was filed with following prayers :- “1. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, Quash and set aside both the impugned orders dated 10-1-2014 & 7-9-2014 AND 2. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, to allow the petitioner to join his duties with immediate effect AND 3. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, make arrangement of payment to the petitioner during the period of 10-1-2014 to till joining of duties with interest AND 4. Any other relief, whichever this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case, may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 4. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, make arrangement of payment to the petitioner during the period of 10-1-2014 to till joining of duties with interest AND 4. Any other relief, whichever this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case, may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 4. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and perused the record available on the file carefully 5. A perusal of the record reveals that show-cause notice dated 18.10.2013, for carrying passengers without ticket was issued against the appellant. Opportunity of hearing was afforded to the appellant to contest the charges. The appellant did not participate in the departmental proceedings on his own choice. Appellant also did not produce any evidence, oral or documentary in his defence, therefore, the Inquiry Officer found the charges of carrying passengers without ticket on 29.08.2012 and 10.09.2012 proved against the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the inquiry report and taking into account the fact that the appellant was earlier punished in eight other inquiry proceedings between the period of 27.12.2011 and 21.11.2013, passed the order dated 10.01.2014, terminating the services of the appellant from the post of Conductor 6. A perusal of the punishment order dated 10.01.2014 reveals that on five prior occasions, the appellant was found guilty of carrying passengers without ticket. Some other punishment orders had also been passed against the appellant prior to passing of the impugned order of termination dated 10.01.2014. The learned Single Judge has observed that proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to contest the charges. The petitioner himself opted not to participate in the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner neither cross-examined the witnesses of the Department nor produced any evidence, oral or documentary in defence. The Disciplinary Authority had held from evidence on record that the petitioner did not reform himself despite having been warned in several departmental proceedings and remained recalcitrant despite punishments imposed in such inquiry proceedings on previous occasions. The charges of dishonesty and misconduct of carrying passengers without ticket, were also held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of evidence led during the course of Departmental Inquiry. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation vide order dated 07.09.2014. The charges of dishonesty and misconduct of carrying passengers without ticket, were also held to be proved by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of evidence led during the course of Departmental Inquiry. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation vide order dated 07.09.2014. The scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings is well defined. In S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India and Ors (2019) 4 SCC 660 , it has been held as under :- “..This Court further held that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction and the High Court does not exercise a jurisdiction of an appellate court. The findings of the fact reached by a tribunal as result of the appreciation of the evidence cannot be questioned in the writ proceedings. In paragraph 23 of the judgment, following has been laid down: 23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The findings of fact reached by an inferior court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan. This Court again in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, reiterated the same principles regarding judicial review of disciplinary proceedings. In paras 12 and 13, the following has been laid down: 12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 7. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 7. In view of above, the power of this court to interfere in the findings of the departmental inquiry, is limited. In this case, the petitioner-appellant was afforded sufficient opportunity to participate in the departmental proceedings. Despite that, he of his own free will remained absent from the departmental proceedings and neither cross-examined any of the witnesses of the Department nor led any evidence in defence, either oral or documentary. Thus, no illegality or perversity can be attributed to the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 10.01.2014, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.09.2014 and no ground for interference in the findings of the Disciplinary Authority is made out in exercise of powers of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. It has also been submitted by the appellant that he had been punished with termination from service without any serious mistake and for only minor mistake. Thus, the punishment order is disproportionate to the charge levelled against him. Such minor mistake could have been condoned by the Department. 9. The appellant was found guilty of carrying passengers without ticket. Thus, the charge against the appellant related to misappropriation of funds or dishonesty. 10. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Vinod Kumar (2008) 1 SCC 115 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “..That, in such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering with the quantum of punishment. Without burdening the judgment with all the judgments of this Court on this point, we may only refer to a recent judgment in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh (2006) 6 SCC 187 , wherein this Court, after taking into account the earlier decisions, held in para 18 as under: (SCC p. 193) “18. In the instant case, the mis-appropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs 360.95. This Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded to the delinquent employees who mis-appropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. In the instant case, the mis-appropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs 360.95. This Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded to the delinquent employees who mis-appropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money mis-appropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissile in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of mis-appropriating the Corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti (2201) 2 SCC 574, was also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of the passengers of the vehicle from whom the said sum was collected was also not essential. This apart, the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. This omission was sufficient to hold him guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a conductor because such action or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the appellant irrespective of the quantum.” (emphasis supplied) 11. Thus, it is well settled law that where an employee is found guilty of the charge of misappropriation of funds or dishonesty, the punishment of termination cannot be held to be disproportionate or unjustified. 12. In view of above discussion, the order of the learned Single Judge is just and proper. No ground for interference is made out and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed