JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. 1. Heard Sri S. Karunakar, learned Counsel representing Sri Devakumar Salikiti, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondents. 2. The petitioner while working as Track Point Man (TPM) - B at Simhachalam, he has applied for leave from 11.10.2014 to 13.10.2014. He did not report after expiry of the said period and remained absent from 14.10.2014 to 19.12.2014. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 15.10.2014 on the following two charges : (I) That the applicant while working under SMR/SCMN has sub-letted the Railway Quarter No.56/A, which was allotted to him in June 2012 to the outsider by taking advance amount from him. (II) That the applicant while working under SMR/SCMN was remained unauthorized absent from duty from 14.10.2014 to 19.12.2014. He did not submit any medical certificate from the competent authority, if he is sick as per extent rules. He is a regular habit of absenting without any intimation and submitting sick and fit certificates (PMC) at the time of joining. 3. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner attended enquiry alongwith his defence Counsel. He also submitted his explanation denying the charges. The Inquiry Officer after conducting inquiry, submitted his report holding that both the charges were proved. The disciplinary authority, after considering the explanation of the petitioner against the inquiry officer's report, passed the order dated 20.04.2015, imposing the penalty of removal from service. The petitioner's appeal and revision were rejected on 10.06.2015 & 14.12.2015 respectively. The petitioner filed OA No.020/1510/2015, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 13.07.2023, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits only that the petitioner did not sublet the railway quarter allotted to him. 5. We have considered the submission and perused the material on record. 6. Finding has been recorded by the Inquiry Officer accepted by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner illegally sublet the quarter allotted to him to the outsider by taking advance amount. The petitioner in his explanation (Ex.P10) has also stated about taking of some money from a person, though he stated that, that person forcefully occupied the allotted premises. The finding on proof charge is recorded and affirmed by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal. 7. The finding has also been recorded that the petitioner remained unauthorized absent from duty from 14.10.2014 to 19.12.2014. The finding on proof charge is recorded and affirmed by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal. 7. The finding has also been recorded that the petitioner remained unauthorized absent from duty from 14.10.2014 to 19.12.2014. On this aspect nothing is argued before us. However, the reply of the respondent filed before the Tribunal shows the petitioner's previous unauthorised absent and the penalty imposed on various occasions, which is as under : (i) Un-authorized absent for the period from 01.11.1999 to 15.11.1999 at JRT (Jarthi) Station : Penalty imposed : Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of 3 months with NCE : NIP No.WTI/UA/503/99 dated 06.04.2000. (ii) Un-authorized absent for the period from 04.04.2000 to 23.04.2000 at JRT (Jarthi) Station : Penalty imposed : Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of 3 months with NCE : NIP No.WTI/UA/374/2000 dated 20.10.2000. (iii) Un-authorized absent for the period from 20.02.2001 to 26.02.2001 at JRT (Jarthi) Station : Penalty imposed : Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of 3 months with NCE : NIP No.WTI/UA/151/2001 dated 10.08.2001. (iv) Un-authorized absent for the period from 11.01.2002 to 25.01.2002 at JRT (Jarthi) Station : Penalty imposed : Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of 3 months with NCE : NIP No.WTI/UA/144/02/IR dated 05.08.2002. (v) Un-authorized absent for the period from 06.08.2002 to 16.08.2002 at JRT (Jarthi) Station : Penalty imposed : Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of 1 year with NCE : NIP No.WTI/UA/245/2002/IR dated 20.12.2002. (vi) Un-authorized absent for the period from 22.10.2004 to 31.10.2004 at JRT (Jarthi) Station : Penalty imposed : Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of 6 months with NCE : NIP No.WTI/UA/216/04 dated 07.04.2005. (vii) Un-authorized absent for the period from 14.04.2005 to 26.12.2005 in different spells at VSPS (Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Siding) : Penalty imposed : Stoppage of Annual Increment for a period of 1 year with NCE : NIP No.WTI/2/10/2006 dated 09.11.2006. (viii) Un-authorized absent for the period from 24.04.2012 to 23.04.2014 in different spells at SCMN (Simhachalam North) : Penalty imposed : Reduction to lower pay for a period of 2 years with NCE : NIP No.WTI/2/UA/12/2014 dated 03.09.2014. (ix) Un-authorized absent for the period from 14.10.2014 to 05.12.2014 at SCMN (Simhachalam North) and subletting of Railway Quarter : Penalty imposed : Removal from service with immediate effect duly granting 2/3rd pension and without gratuity NIP No.WTI/2/UA/M/41/2014 dated 20.04.2015. 8. (ix) Un-authorized absent for the period from 14.10.2014 to 05.12.2014 at SCMN (Simhachalam North) and subletting of Railway Quarter : Penalty imposed : Removal from service with immediate effect duly granting 2/3rd pension and without gratuity NIP No.WTI/2/UA/M/41/2014 dated 20.04.2015. 8. The aforesaid findings could not to be shown to be suffering from any error of law or perversity so as to call for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under : "12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as Appellate Authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The disciplinary authority is the Sole Judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the Appellate Authority has co-extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 781, this Court held at Page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. 14. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 , when the order of transfer was interfered by the Tribunal, this Court held that the Tribunal was not an appellate authority which could substitute its own judgment to that bona fide order of transfer. The Tribunal could not, in such circumstances, interfere with orders of transfer of a Government servant. In Administrator of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. H.P. Vora, (1993) Supp. 1 SCC 551, it was held that the Administrative Tribunal was not an Appellate Authority and it could not substitute the role of authorities to clear the efficiency bar of a public servant. In Administrator of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. H.P. Vora, (1993) Supp. 1 SCC 551, it was held that the Administrative Tribunal was not an Appellate Authority and it could not substitute the role of authorities to clear the efficiency bar of a public servant. Recently, in State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow, (1994) 1 SC 217, a Bench of this Court to which two of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy & B.L. Hansaria, JJ.) were members, considered the order of the Tribunal, which quashed the charges as based on no evidence, went in detail into the question as to whether the Tribunal had power to appreciate the evidence while exercising power of judicial review and held that a Tribunal could not appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion to that of the disciplinary authority. It would, therefore, be clear that the Tribunal cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence to substitute its own findings of fact to that of a disciplinary/appellate authority. 15. It is, therefore, difficult to go into the question whether the appellant was in possession of property disproportionate to the known source of his income. The findings of the disciplinary authority and that of Inquiry Officer are based on evidence collected during the inquiry, They reached the findings that the appellant was in possession of Rs.30,000/- in excess of his satisfactorily accounted for assets from his known source of income. The alleged gifts to his wife as stridhana and to his children on their birthdays were disbelieved. It is within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to reach that conclusion. There is evidence in that behalf." 10. In State of Karnataka v. Umesh, (2022) 6 SCC 563 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under : "22. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The Court does not reappreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. In the exercise of judicial review, the Court does not act as an appellate forum over the findings of the disciplinary authority. The Court does not reappreciate the evidence on the basis of which the finding of misconduct has been arrived at in the course of a disciplinary enquiry. The Court in the exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether : (i) the rules of natural justice have been complied with; (ii) the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence; (iii) the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed; and (iv) whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity; and (v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. 23. However, none of the above tests for attracting the interference of the High Court were attracted in the present case. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal having exercised the power of judicial review found no reason to interfere with the award of punishment of compulsory retirement. The Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 and trenched upon a domain which falls within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority are sustainable with reference to the evidence which was adduced during the enquiry. The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding." 11. Any violation of any principles of natural justice or of the rules relating to enquiry has not been argued before us. 12. Considering the seriousness of the proved charges, we are of the view that the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. 13. There is no illegality in the judgment of the Tribunal. 14. The writ petition is dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. 16. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.