JUDGMENT : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.6.2022 passed by the Assistant General Manager (PPG), Local Head Office, Patna whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for release of salary, provident fund and gratuity has been rejected on the ground that acquittal in the criminal case is having no bearing with the order of punishment inflicted upon the delinquent employee on conclusion of the departmental proceeding initiated under the applicable Conduct Rule. 2. The brief fact of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, reads hereunder as :- The petitioner was working on the post of Accountant at State Bank of India, Jharia Branch, Jharia, Dhanbad. At the fag end of his service career, four criminal cases were registered against the petitioner being (a) Chirkunda P.S. Case no.251 of 2006 dated 17.11.2006 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 477A of the Indian Penal Code; (b) Chirkunda P.s. Case no.252 of 2006 dated 27.11.2006 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 477A of the Indian Penal Code; (c) Chirkunda (Panchet) P.S. Case no.239 of 2006 dated 5.11.2006 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 477 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code; and (d) Jharia P.S. Case no.411 of 2006 dated 23.11.2006 under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468 & 477A of the Indian Penal Code. All aforesaid four cases were registered with more or less similar allegation, alleging, inter alia, that a written report was made by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Chirkunda Branch to the Officer-in-charge of Chirkunda police station on 27.11.2006 to the effect that during the period of posting of the petitioner for the period from 26.2.2004 to 8.5.2004 at the said branch, he fraudulently withdrew an amount of total Rs.3,16,089/- from the internal account of the bank and deposited the same in his account as well as in the account of his close persons which was admitted by him before the competent authority. The further allegation is that besides the above, the petitioner fraudulently withdrew Rs.4,82,000/- from the internal account of Basanti Mata Colliery Branch and deposited the same in the account of Bandana Chakraborty bearing S.B. A/c. No.01190006379. The further allegation is that besides the above, the petitioner fraudulently withdrew Rs.4,82,000/- from the internal account of Basanti Mata Colliery Branch and deposited the same in the account of Bandana Chakraborty bearing S.B. A/c. No.01190006379. It is the further case of the petitioner that for the same set of facts and on the basis of registration of the aforesaid first information reports, departmental proceeding was initiated against him. In the said departmental proceeding, memo of charge was served upon the petitioner vide letter no.DGM/DPS/R/Gen/106 dated 28.5.2008, alleging that while the petitioner was posted at Kumardhubi, Jharia Bazar, Chirkunda and Basantimata Colliery branches, the petitioner acted in violation of Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules. On completion of enquiry, enquiry report was submitted, a copy of which was served upon the petitioner vide Letter no.DGM/DPS/R/Gen/614 dated 13.2.2009, directing to submit his submission within 15 days from the date of receipt of the report failing which the petitioner has no submission to offer and the respondent-bank would proceed further in the matter. Thereafter, the General Manager (Network-II) & Appointing Authority, State Bank of India, Gandhi Maidan, Patna Respondent no.2 passed speaking order, whereby the gratuity amount of the petitioner has been forfeited under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act in its entirety due to loss of Rs.10,53,659.12 suffered by the Bank. The said speaking order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter No.VIG/GEN/KD/12 dated 28.4.2009. In terms of the order passed by the appointing authority, the amount of salary, provident fund and gratuity was withheld. Thereafter, the petitioner made a request before the respondent authorities for release of the withheld back salary, provident fund and gratuity along with all incidental increments and benefits available to an employee by filing a representation on 17.12.2021, stating therein that he is not involved in any of the alleged defalcations, but no heed has been paid to his request. The petitioner again made representation by way of reminder on 24.5.2022 before the respondent authorities, requesting therein to release the withheld back salary, provident fund and gratuity along with all incidental increments and benefits available to an employee. The petitioner again made representation by way of reminder on 24.5.2022 before the respondent authorities, requesting therein to release the withheld back salary, provident fund and gratuity along with all incidental increments and benefits available to an employee. The petitioner received a letter No. PPG/62 dated 13.06.2022 issued under the signature of the Assistant General manager (PPG), State Bank of India, Pension Provident Fund & Gratuity, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna respondent no.3, whereby and whereunder, the application filed by the petitioner for release of salary, provident fund and gratuity has been rejected on the ground that the order of acquittal by the appellate court on technical grounds and by giving benefit of doubts does not militate against the punishment awarded to an employee by his employer after due enquiry and as per service rules applicable to the employee. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of rejection dated 13.06.2022, has filed the writ petition by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is evident from the pleading made in the writ petition that the writ petitioner while working as Accountant in State Bank of India, Jharia Branch, Dhanbad, he was proceeded departmentally by issuance of memorandum of charge under the Conduct Rule alleging therein that he has discharged his duty with omission and gross irregularity putting the bank at loss. It is evident that several charges have been framed against the petitioner. The writ petitioner submitted his response to the said allegations and prayed therein that the charge as has been levelled be dropped but the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the said reply, has not found the response to be satisfactory and has decided to proceed departmentally. The writ petitioner was subjected to enquiry. He has participated before the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has found all the charges to be proved. The enquiry report dated 13.02.2009, as appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, has been forwarded before the disciplinary authority for taking appropriate decision. The disciplinary authority has taken decision by accepting the finding so recorded by the enquiry officer and passed the order of dismissal against the writ petitioner as also forfeiture of the amount of gratuity in view of the provision as contained under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The disciplinary authority has taken decision by accepting the finding so recorded by the enquiry officer and passed the order of dismissal against the writ petitioner as also forfeiture of the amount of gratuity in view of the provision as contained under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It further appears from the factual aspect that a criminal case was also instituted. Although the trial court has convicted the writ petitioner for the offence under Sections 406,409,420,468 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code but the order of conviction has been reversed by the appellate court. The aforesaid judgment of acquittal was passed by the court in the year 2015. The order of punishment of dismissal along with forfeiture of gratuity was passed on 28.04.2009. The writ petitioner, on his acquittal from the criminal charges, has made representation before the authorities for disbursement of the amount of gratuity on the ground that the criminal case which was instituted against him was on the same set of facts and allegations and once the writ petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, the entire allegation as levelled against the writ petitioner in the memorandum of charge, which was the subject matter of the departmental proceeding, will be said to be vitiated and in that view of the matter, the writ petitioner is entitled for the amount of gratuity but the competent authority has not accepted the aforesaid plea and has rejected the same on the ground that the criminal case will have no bearing with the punishment already passed by the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceeding. The aforesaid order dated 13.06.2022 is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the criminal case in which the writ petitioner has been acquitted since was based upon the same set of facts and evidence and once the writ petitioner has been acquitted on merit, it will be said to be honourable acquittal and, therefore, the bearing of the said acquittal will be upon the decision taken by the disciplinary authority of his dismissal along with forfeiture of the gratuity. 5. None appears for the respondent State Bank of India although the name of learned counsel is reflecting in the daily cause list. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the fact as also on the legal issues. 5. None appears for the respondent State Bank of India although the name of learned counsel is reflecting in the daily cause list. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the fact as also on the legal issues. 7. The issue which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the acquittal in the criminal case will have bearing upon the punishment already imposed by the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceeding. This Court, in order to consider the aforesaid ground deems it fit and proper to refer certain judicial pronouncements in this regard. It is well settled that the pendency of the criminal case is required to be considered on at the appropriate stage of the pendency of the departmental proceeding. The law is well settled right from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 wherein while dealing with the situation of simultaneous continuation of departmental proceeding vis-à-vis criminal proceeding, the Hon'ble Apex court has arrived at following conclusions: (i). Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii).If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii).Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv).The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v). (iv).The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v). If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest. In Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. Vs. Girish V. and Others, [ (2014) 3 SCC 636 ], their lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the situation of continuation of simultaneous proceeding both in departmental as well as criminal proceeding, has been pleased to hold by taking note of all the earlier judgments rendered at paragraph 16 which reads as under:— “16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. The court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this court to be in the interest of the employees.” It is thus evident from the judgments referred herein above that there is no bar in simultaneous continuation of departmental proceeding with criminal proceeding if both are on the same set of facts and evidence then the delinquent will be liberty to make application for stay of the departmental proceeding and the court of law is required to see the nature of gravity of the allegation and the said application is to be dealt with on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another (Supra). It is, thus, evident that appropriate stage to look into the judicial proceeding (criminal case) is while the departmental proceeding is pending. If the delinquent employee is taking the ground that the evidence which is being discussed in the departmental proceeding, if it will be disclosed at the stage of departmental proceeding when the judicial proceeding is pending, the case of the delinquent employee in the judicial proceeding will be prejudiced and the appropriate stage will be at the time of pendency of departmental proceeding. 8. Here, in the given facts of the case, admittedly the departmental proceeding was initiated and was culminated into the final order of punishment passed on 28.04.2009 as available at page 162 of the paper book whereby and whereunder the writ petitioner was dismissed from service along with forfeiture of gratuity in view of the provision of Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The writ petitioner had been convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 24.04.2015 and 19.03.2018 but the judgment of conviction was reversed by the appellate court by acquitting the writ petitioner from criminal charges vide judgment dated 24.08.2015 and 06.07.2018, as available at page 77 to 96 of the paper book. The writ petitioner had been convicted by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 24.04.2015 and 19.03.2018 but the judgment of conviction was reversed by the appellate court by acquitting the writ petitioner from criminal charges vide judgment dated 24.08.2015 and 06.07.2018, as available at page 77 to 96 of the paper book. The writ petitioner, thereafter, i.e., after lapse of about four years from the date of acquittal, has made representation before the authority concerned for disbursement of the amount of gratuity but the same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 13.06.2022. 9. The order by which the disbursement of the amount of gratuity has been refused suffers from no error due to the following reasons:- (i) The writ petitioner, in course of pendency of the departmental proceeding, even though the judicial proceeding has commenced by submission of chargesheet by the investigating agency and the cognizance was also taken, at that time already the departmental proceeding begun but the petitioner did not take any endeavor by making any application for stay of the departmental proceeding, rather, the writ petitioner has allowed the departmental proceeding to proceed which ultimately culminated into the order of dismissal along with forfeiture of the gratuity amount. (ii) The writ petitioner ought to have made an application for stay of the departmental proceeding in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Another (Supra) so as to impress upon the disciplinary authority to stay the departmental proceeding so as not to cause any prejudice in the criminal case but the said steps have not been taken by the writ petitioner. Rather, in the departmental proceeding the writ petitioner had participated and ultimately the proceeding concluded in the order of dismissal along with forfeiture of the gratuity amount. (iii) The writ petitioner, for the first time, after having acquitted in the criminal case, i.e., on 06.07.2018 by the judgment passed by the appellate court, not even immediately thereafter, rather, after lapse of period of about four years, has made representation before the authority concerned for disbursement of the amount of gratuity on the ground of acquittal in the criminal case. (iv) The writ petitioner, therefore, has accepted the order of punishment of dismissal which was passed way back on 28.04.2009, since there is no averment to the effect that the order of dismissal along with forfeiture of gratuity has ever been challenged immediately after 28.04.2009, and even there is no averment to the effect that the order of dismissal/order of punishment dated 28.04.2009 has been challenged. Therefore, the order of dismissal dated 28.04.2009 along with forfeiture of the amount of gratuity has been accepted by the writ petitioner since the same has not been questioned on either of the grounds regarding its sustainability, meaning thereby, whatever punishment has been imposed by the disciplinary authority, the same has been accepted by the writ petitioner fairly for a period of 12 years. 10. The question which has been raised by the writ petitioner by filing the representation for disbursement of the amount of gratuity on the ground of acquittal in the criminal case by the appellate court cannot be considered justifiable ground for disbursement of the gratuity, reason being that on the one hand the writ petitioner has accepted the punishment of dismissal along with forfeiture of gratuity amount fairly for about 13 years while on the other hand, the writ petitioner wants to take advantage of his acquittal by the appellate court. 11. The question will be that once the disciplinary authority has taken the decision on conclusion of departmental proceeding for dismissal of the writ petitioner from service based upon the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, the claim of the writ petitioner merely because he has been acquitted in the criminal case, cannot be said to be justified demand made on the part of the writ petitioner, without questioning the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. 12. The law is well settled that merely on acquittal in the criminal case, does not vitiate the departmental proceeding, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. Vrs. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 , laying down the proposition at paragraph-26, thereof to the effect that mere acquittal of an employee by the criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the department. Vrs. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598 , laying down the proposition at paragraph-26, thereof to the effect that mere acquittal of an employee by the criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceeding initiated by the department. It has further been laid down that if an employee is honourably acquitted by the criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit. For ready reference, paragraph-26 is quoted as under:- “26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.” 13. The authority concerned has assigned the reason while rejecting the said claim that bearing of the criminal case even though resulted in acquittal will have no effect on the departmental proceeding or its result since, both the proceedings are to run parallely and to be seen parallely. The authority concerned has assigned the reason while rejecting the said claim that bearing of the criminal case even though resulted in acquittal will have no effect on the departmental proceeding or its result since, both the proceedings are to run parallely and to be seen parallely. The reason is that while the judicial proceeding is based upon the proving of charge beyond all shadow of doubt while the said parameter is not available so far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, since in the departmental proceeding punishment can be imposed even on the basis of preponderance of probability and that is the reason the bearing of a criminal case will not be in the departmental proceeding since the parameters to judge the offence is different in both judicial and departmental proceeding. Herein, even though the writ petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case by the appellate court but that will not affect the decision already taken by the disciplinary authority on conclusion of the departmental proceeding since the charges have been found conclusively proved, as would be evident from the enquiry report appended to the writ petition as Annexure-2, basis upon which the order of dismissal has been passed. Therefore, once the charge has been found to be proved by the enquiry officer and the same has been accepted by the disciplinary authority while imposing punishment of dismissal, the same will have no bearing on acquittal of the writ petitioner in the criminal case. 14. It is evident from the order of dismissal that the amount of gratuity has been withheld in exercise of power conferred under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, reference of the same is required to be made which reads hereunder as :- “4. 14. It is evident from the order of dismissal that the amount of gratuity has been withheld in exercise of power conferred under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, reference of the same is required to be made which reads hereunder as :- “4. Payment of Gratuity.- (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years,- (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: Provided further that in case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the Controlling Authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement. (2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned: Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account: Provided further that in the case of an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment, and who is not so employed throughout the year, the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each season. Explanation.-In the case of a monthly rated employee, the fifteen days' wages shall be calculated by dividing the monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen. (3) The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed ten lakh rupees. (4) For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to an employee who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced wages, his wages for the period preceding his disablement shall be taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his wages for the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to be the wages as so reduced. (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (i),- (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. (b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited- (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part; or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.” 15. It is evident from the provision of Section 4 which contains a provision for payment of gratuity and the condition for disbursement of gratuity along with the condition for its forfeiture. Sub-Section (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 4 speak about the payment of gratuity while Sub-section (6) speaks about its forfeiture.. The condition stipulated under Sub-Section (6)(a) of Section 4 provides that the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. The condition stipulated under Sub-Section (6)(a) of Section 4 provides that the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. Sub-Section (6)(b) provides the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment. 16. Here, in the given facts of the case, the authorities have exercised the power conferred under Section 4(6)(a) of the Act, 1972 while forfeiting the gratuity, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error, reason being that here the writ petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground of willful omission after the charge having been found to be proved basis upon which the enquiry officer has come to the conclusion that due to the conduct of the writ petitioner the bank was put to loss. 17. In such circumstances, the power conferred under Section 4(6)(a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been exercised for forfeiture of the gratuity, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 18. This Court, after having discussed the legal position as also the factual aspect, is of the view that the direction as has been sought for showing interference in the impugned order dated 28.04.2009 by issuing writ of certiorari, is not available, reason being that the principle to issue writ of certiorari is very limited as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob vs. Radhakrishnan, A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 477, wherein at paragraph 7 it has been held as under: “7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be 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 the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari 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. Similarly, 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. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned 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, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233 ); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : ( AIR 1958 SC 398 ) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168 .” In Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder in paragraph no.21: “21. With regard to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it can be issued, the following propositions may be taken as established: (1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own findings in certiorari.” In Sawarn Singh and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 868 their Lordships, while discussing the power of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari, has been pleased to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as hereunder: “12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra) 13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” 19. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” 19. This Court, after considering the power of judicial review in issuance of writ of certiorari coupled with the facts of the given case, is of the view that it is not a fit case where this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to exercise power to show interference with the impugned order dated 13.06.2022 by issuing writ of certiorari. 20. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed.