ORDER 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 26.10.1999 (Annexure-P-18) passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Morena (Disciplinary Authority), whereby the petitioner has been compulsorily retired and order dated 28.9.2000 (Annexure-P-20), whereby, appeal preferred by the petitioner to the appellate Authority has been dismissed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has expired and, therefore, his legal representatives have been brought on record. 2. The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner at the relevant time, was working as Head Copiest in the Court of Shivpurkalan, District Morena. The petitioner was the President of Union of Class-III employees. On 5.2.1998, he was served with a show cause notice by the District and Sessions Judge, Morena, stating therein that in one objectionable pamphlet in the name of Vijay Kumar Garg was distributed by the petitioner to his fellow employee and the said pamphlet was also pasted at various places. The said pamphlets contained derogatory remark against Hon’ble the then Chief Justice and other Hon’ble Judges of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner was called upon to explain his conduct as prima facie the same was found to be against M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1965’ for short). The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.2.1998 denying all the charges and he pleaded his innocence. On 27.2.1998, the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner along with the imputation of charges, list of witnesses, list of documents etc. The petitioner replied to the said charge sheet on 5.6.1998. Being dissatisfied with the reply, so submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority appointed IV Additional District Judge, Morena, as enquiry officer and one Batham was appointed as presenting officer. The petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing. After enquiry on 25.9.1999 (Annexure-P-15), enquiry report was sent to the disciplinary authority. On 29.9.2019 (Annexure-P-16), the petitioner was served with the enquiry report and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from services under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1966’ for short). The petitioner submitted his reply on 11.10.1999. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.10.1999, considered case of the petitioner and instead of awarding proposed punishment from removal of services, a penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed. The petitioner submitted his reply on 11.10.1999. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.10.1999, considered case of the petitioner and instead of awarding proposed punishment from removal of services, a penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed. The petitioner preferred appeal (Annexure-P-19) to the appellate authority, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 28.9.2000 (Annexure-P-20). Hence, the petitioner has filed the instant petition, challenging the order of penalty and order of dismissal of his appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of compulsory retirement of the petitioner is completely improper. There is no evidence against the petitioner to prove that he has distributed objectionable pamphlets. In absence of any material, order of penalty suffers from non- application of mind. He, therefore, submits that instant writ petition deserves to be allowed while setting aside the order of penalty. 4. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 submit that reading of objectionable pamphlets would clearly demonstrate that conduct of the petitioner is unpardonable. The author of the pamphlets Vijay Kumar Garg, Copiest, District Court, Morena, has been removed from the services after the departmental enquiry. During enquiry, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morena, Shri R.P. Shilpi (PW/1), Peon namely Shiv Shankar Kulshreshtha (PW/2), Additional District Judge Shivpurkalan Shri B.K. Chhaparia (PW/3) and Civil Judge Class-I, Shivpurkalan, Shri Upendra Kumar Singh (PW/4) were examined in support of charges of misconduct. The original charge sheet was amended vide order dated 1.8.1998 (Annexure-P/9) and the date of incident which was earlier mentioned as 3.2.1998, was amended as 23.1.1998. Accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to further cross-examine the departmental witnesses. The petitioner in his defence has examined Vijay Kumar Garg (DW/1) the author of objectionable pamphlets, Shri B.P. Sinha (DW/2), Shri Rajendra Kumar and one Manoj Kumar (DW/4). The statement of petitioner was recorded on 1.2.1999. The enquiry officer in his enquiry report found that the petitioner on 22.1.1998 pasted objectionable pamphlets in the premises of concerned Court. The conduct of the petitioner was found to be to be in violation of Rule 3 of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and, accordingly, a punishment under rule 8 of Rules of 1966, for removal of the petitioner from services was proposed. The conduct of the petitioner was found to be to be in violation of Rule 3 of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and, accordingly, a punishment under rule 8 of Rules of 1966, for removal of the petitioner from services was proposed. The disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view and under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the entire evidence against the petitioner cannot be re-appreciated and, hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 ] , Union of India and others v. P. Gunasekaran [ (2015) 2 SCC 610 ] Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others v. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava [ (2021) 2 SCC 612 ] , and he submits that in view of the aforesaid legal position, the scope of judicial review is very limited. 6. The record shows that the following charges were made against the petitioner. The same are reproduced as under :-- ß%&vkjksi&i=&% eS] ts0 ds0 ,l0 jktiwr] ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k] eqjSuk ,oa vuq'kklfud vfèkdkjh rqe Jh jktdqekj tksgjh] izfrfyfidkj U;k;ky; vfr0 ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k] ';ksiqjdyka ij fuEu vkjksi yxkrk gw¡ %& ;g fd vki vfr0 ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k] ';ksiqjdyka ds v/khuLFk izfrfyfidkj ds in ij inLFk jgrs gq;s vkids }kjk fnukad 3-2-1998 dks Jh fot;dqekj xxZ] izfrfyfidkj] eqjSuk ds gLrk{kj ls tkjh ,oa lwpuk&i= fnukad 18-1-1998 ds isEIysV U;k;ky; Hkou ';ksiqjdyka esa pLik djk, x,A mDr lwpuk&i= esa ekuuh; eq[; U;k;kf/kifr egksn; tcyiqj ,oa vU; ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr egksn; ,oa eqjSuk esa inLFk U;k;k/kh'kx.kksa ds izfr izfrdwy fVIIk.kh] dh xbZ] tks ekuuh; eq[; U;k;kf/kifr egksn; ,oa vU; U;k;kf/kifr egksn; ,oa U;k;k/kh'kx.kksa lEeku esa foijhr gSaA bl izdkj vkidk mDr ÑR;] e0iz0 flfoy lsok vkpj.k lafgrk 1965 ds fu;e 3 ds vUrxZr xaHkhj dnkpj.k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS- tks e0iz0 flfoy lsok oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 10 ds vUrxZr n.Muh; gSAß 7. On 1.8.1998, in charge memo, the amendment was made with respect to the date. Instead of 3.2.1998, the same was replaced by 28.1.1998. On 1.8.1998, in charge memo, the amendment was made with respect to the date. Instead of 3.2.1998, the same was replaced by 28.1.1998. The material available on record shows that II Civil Judge Class-I, Upendra Kumar (PW/4), stated that on 28.1.1998, on hearing noise in the Court premises, he called his reader to enquire into the reason, who informed him that certain objectionable pamphlets were being pasted and distributed. The said witness further stated that he directed the Court Clerk, Shri Manoj Gupta, to remove all those objectionable pamphlets. Shri B.K. Chhapariya (PW/3), Additional District Judge, was also informed about the entire incident. When the Court Clerk Shiv Shankar Kulshreshtha, informed that the petitioner was pasting objectionable pamphlets, the petitioner was called and he admitted his conduct and defended on the ground that he being President of the Union, was pasting the objectionable pamphlets. 8. We find that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner and the decision making process in the instant case cannot be said to be illegal or improper. The scope of interference is very limited. The findings of disciplinary authority are based on material and this Court cannot be expected to re-appreciate the entire evidence and substitute its own findings. The penalty of compulsory retirement under the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be said to be disproportionate or excessive so as to shock the judicial conscience. The findings are not perverse. The enquiry has been found to be in accordance with the procedure and principles of natural justice have also been followed. There is no allegation or material to establish malafide and under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere into the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 9. In view of aforesaid, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.