JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. This intra-court appeal is filed under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dtd. 28/1/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.204632/2015. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondents are the respondents before the writ Court. 3. Brief facts of the case leading rise to filing of this writ appeal are as follows: The second respondent who was appointed as Extension Officer in Karnataka Milk Federation taking undue advantage of the position has committed several acts of financial irregularities, misappropriation of funds, misuse of office seal etc. Chargesheet was issued to the second respondent. A domestic enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charges levelled against the second respondent are proved and passed an order for dismissal from service. The second respondent aggrieved by the order of dismissal filed an application before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies allowed the application filed by the second respondent and set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the second respondent with backwages. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies preferred an appeal in Appeal No.539/2011 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal vide order dtd. 28/5/2015 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and the order passed in the aforesaid appeal by the Tribunal, preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.204632/2015. The learned Single Judge considering the material on record rejected the writ petition. The petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed this intra-Court appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the second respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities committed an error in passing the impugned orders without properly considering the material on record. He submits that the charges levelled against the second respondent are serious in nature. The Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquiry has submitted a report alleging that the charges levelled against the second respondent are proved. He submits that the petitioner was justified in terminating the second respondent from service. He submits that the charges levelled against the second respondent are serious in nature. The Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquiry has submitted a report alleging that the charges levelled against the second respondent are proved. He submits that the petitioner was justified in terminating the second respondent from service. Hence, he submits that the learned Single Judge did not consider the material placed on record and has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the Joint Registrar of Cooperative societies after considering the material on record has rightly held that the petitioner has failed to prove the charges levelled against the second respondent. He also submits that that the Tribunal on re-appreciating the material on record was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. He also submits that the writ Court declined to entertain the writ petition while exercising supervisory jurisdiction as a Court of appeal. He submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ appeal. 7. Heard, perused the records and considered the submissions. 8. It is not in dispute that the second respondent was appointed in Karnataka Milk Federation Union and was working as an Extension Officer and enquiry was conducted against him for alleged irregularities, misappropriation of funds etc. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report alleging that the second respondent is found guilty of charges and on the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner has terminated the second respondent from service. The order of dismissal was challenged before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. On the basis of the material on record, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies held that the petitioner has failed to furnish the documents in support of the charges levelled against the second respondent before the Enquiry Officer. Further, it is held that the charges levelled against the second respondent are not proved and consequently, allowed the application filed by the second respondent. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. Further, it is held that the charges levelled against the second respondent are not proved and consequently, allowed the application filed by the second respondent. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after reconsideration of the material on record, was justified in holding that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the charges levelled against the second respondent were supported by the documents and witnesses in the domestic enquiry and the Enquiry Officer who conducted domestic enquiry did not have any material on record to arrive at a conclusion that the second respondent had committed irregularities, misappropriation of funds or misuse of position. The Tribunal on re-appreciation of the material on record was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The writ Court after re-appreciation of the material on record and also considering the scope of interference under supervisory jurisdiction as a Court of appeal declined to entertain the writ petition. As rightly observed by the writ Court, two authorities below have examined the factual aspects of the case and recorded a finding that the second respondent filed an application for grant of leave which was not disposed of either by sanctioning or declining to sanction leave and therefore, the charge for unauthorised absence was unavailable and further, recorded a finding that the allegation against the second respondent that he was illegally engaged in selling milk to a private milk union is also not proved. The writ Court having considered the reasons, findings and conclusions recorded by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and finding recorded by the Tribunal, has rightly come to a conclusion that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction. The scope of interference under Sec. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is very limited. The learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, we do not find any error in the impugned order. We decline to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ appeal is dismissed.