JUDGMENT : MARLI VANKUNG, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred to challenge the impugned order number C.31015/5/2016 - EDM/369 Dated 30.09.2019 and the corrigendum dated 29.05.2020 issued by the respondent No. 2/Education Department by which a major penalty of ‘Dismissal from Service’ was imposed upon the petitioner after the Department inquiry was conducted against him. The instant writ petition is also challenging the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 issued by respondent No. 1 wherein his appeal was rejected by the appellant authority. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Education Department by order dated 05.03.1992 and joined the post at Chhimtuipui District, Siaha. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) vide order dated 28.07.2015 and posted in the office of SDEO, Darlawn. While the petitioner was serving in the post of UDC an inquiry conducted against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (CCS) (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, which was initiated by a memorandum dated 03.05.2017. The petitioner was charged with the allegation that he was involved in a serious fraudulent withdrawal, misappropriation and embezzlement of Government’s money as pointed out by the Tour notes dated 06.05.2016 if Shri Lalmuankima, Superintendent of School Education Department and by the report dated 21.12.2016 submitted by the Special Audit Team. The allegation was that the petitioner was involved in fraudulent withdrawal of pay arrears of school teachers’ from the Governments’ treasury on account of the upgradation to senior grade and selection grade. Accordingly, the petitioner was charged for violation of the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i) (ii) (iii) and rule 3-C of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 21 of the General Financial Rules and Section 13 (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The petitioner had submitted his statement of defence through his defence assistant wherein the charge leveled against him was denied how the department continued with the departmental proceeding. During the proceedings, 2 (two) State witnesses were examined and thereafter the Inquiring Authority upon completing the inquiry, submitted the Inquiry Report dated 16.03.2018, wherein it was concluded that the charges leveled against the petitioner was proved. During the proceedings, 2 (two) State witnesses were examined and thereafter the Inquiring Authority upon completing the inquiry, submitted the Inquiry Report dated 16.03.2018, wherein it was concluded that the charges leveled against the petitioner was proved. The petitioner in response to the inquiry report submitted his written representation as per Rule 15(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules wherein he denied all the charges made out against him and submitted that there was no particular mention of the involvement petitioner in the report submitted by the Special Audit Report and also stated that he never served as Bill Assistant during his entire service in the office of SDEO, Darlawn. And that the fraudulent bills were not made during his term as a Cashier. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 being the disciplinary authority found it fit to pass the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 against the petitioner imposing the major penalty of ‘Dismissal from Office’. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a review under Rule 29 of CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 before the respondent No. 1. The said appeal was reviewed on 08.06.2020 by the office of respondent No. 1 and subsequently disposed of by respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 12.02.2021 wherein the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 was upheld. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the instant writ appeal against the said impugned orders. 5. Mr. B. Lalramenga learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellant was not involved in the said embezzlement of money as made out in the charges against him since the appellant was not the cashier from 2014-2016. He further submits that from the deposition of the State witnesses, he was not a bill assistant and which can be seen from the work distribution. He submits that the inquiry report dated 16.03.2018, stated that during the period from 2009 to 2016, 176 numbers of 6 arrear bills were presented and passed by the treasury and during such period, 8 numbers of SDEO’s held the charge of the SDEO’s office. The statement of the State witness was that the petitioner was amongst the three officials dealing with account matter in the office of SDEO, Darlawng and the petitioner was guilty of the charges. The statement of the State witness was that the petitioner was amongst the three officials dealing with account matter in the office of SDEO, Darlawng and the petitioner was guilty of the charges. The learned counsel submits that though the charge of cashier in the office, during the period 01.12.2011-01.09.2019 was assigned to the petitioner, the alleged fabricated 6 arrears bills were not made during his tenure of holding the charge of cashier in the SDEO’s office at Darlawng. He submits that the 6 arrears bills as mentioned in the charge were mades during 2014, 2015 and 2016. The petitioner tenure of holding the cashier charge and other bills (21 numbers) were made during 2001 and 2010 which was prior to the petitioner tenure and the other double drawn bills (6 numbers) was made in 2015 and 2016 which were also after the petitioners tenure of holding the charge of cashier. That the petitioner was never appointed nor designated as bill assistant in the SDEO’s office, Darlawng at any point of time and though he was assigned to deal with some office works pertaining to accounts, he had never committed any misappropriation of Government’s money by making false statements. There is no indication of the petitioner’s name in the Special Audit Team’s report to show his involvement in the embezzlement of public exchequer. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had never admitted to preparation or making of fabricated bills from the SDEO’s office. That such budget estimated could be prepared only in consistence with the format of the Directorate of School Education. The petitioner had filed the bills as per the format prepared by the Department and which was kept in the computer file in the SDEO’s office, Darlawng. Nothing was mentioned to show or imply that such LOC and required amount were compounded or misappropriated by the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the respondents had failed to apply their mind while imposing the penalty upon the petitioner and that the inquiries report conducted against the petitioner was baseless and arbitrary with no evidence proved against him. The learned counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in (i) Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. The learned counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in (i) Nand Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1978) 3 SCC 366 (Para 19, 20 & 21) wherein, it was held that the tribunal should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence and not merely on grounds of suspicious (ii) Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer & Ors. (1985) 3 SCC 378 (Para 5, & 6) (iii) Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 484 (Para 17) and (iv) the Judgment & Order dated 17.03.2023 passed in WP (C) No. 32/2022, C. Lalhmingchhuangi Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors. by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. 6. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte learned Govt. Advocate, on the other hand submits that from the deposition of the State witnesses, it is clearly established that the petitioner was one amongst the three officers dealing with the accounts matter in the SDEO’s, Darlawng office. The petitioner was the person who supplied documents to the Inspection party. It is clear that the petitioner was associated directly or indirectly in the excess withdrawal of 6 (six) arrears and to the withdrawal of Rs. 1,36,45,986/-. It is seen from the evidence that the petitioner was not merely a computer operator, who did the data works on the basis of such already prepared amount in the computer, but, was also the senior most officer in the office of SDEO, Darlawng who has been performing account related issues for about 6 (six) years (from 2011 as cashier and from 2013-2016 as Bill Assistant),which is reflected in the inspection reports of Special Audit on account of SDEO, Darlawng for the accounting years 2010-11 to 2016-17. That it is the duty of the petitioner to detect the excess financial figures while dealing with financial data even from the computers. It is strange that even though the petitioner performed the account related works for about 6 years he did not detect even a single point of illegality that was happening in his workplace while he is supposed to adhere to the provisions under Rule 21 of GFR with utmost care. Due to his lack of integrity, devotion to duty and commitment, he had committed an act becoming of a Government Servant and is liable to be dismissed from the Government servant. Due to his lack of integrity, devotion to duty and commitment, he had committed an act becoming of a Government Servant and is liable to be dismissed from the Government servant. That the witnesses examined and the records clearly established that the petitioner had embezzled huge amount of money. She further submitted that it is sufficient in such cases to hold the officer guilty if there is preponderance of probability. The learned Government Advocate has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. (Supra) at 20 wherein it was held that: “20. A disciplinary inquiry, it is well settled, is not governed by the strict rules of evidence which govern a criminal trial. A charge of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities. The High Court while exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 has to determine as to whether the charge of misconduct stands established with reference to some legally acceptable evidence. The High Court would not interfere unless the findings are found to be perverse. Unless it is a case of no evidence, the High Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226. If there is some legal evidence to hold that a charge of misconduct is proved, the sufficiency of the evidence would not fall for re-appreciation or re-evaluation before the High Court. Applying these tests, it is not possible to fault the decision of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court on the charge of misconduct. The charge of misconduct was established in Disciplinary Inquiry No. 15 of 2000.” 7. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that it can be seen from the initial inspection report filed by the Director of School Education to the Secretary School Education that a cursory glance of the abstract statement of the bills and A/roll prepared on the basis of the findings of Inspection Team indicates that excess amount drawn during the calendar year 2015 alone is around Rs. 67,00,000/-. It appeared that there are multiple withdrawals deliberately done for misappropriation and embezzlement by the officials concerned. In this inspection report, no specific person was named but the needs of 4 (four) persons who could be possibly involved in the matter were listed out which included the petitioner. 67,00,000/-. It appeared that there are multiple withdrawals deliberately done for misappropriation and embezzlement by the officials concerned. In this inspection report, no specific person was named but the needs of 4 (four) persons who could be possibly involved in the matter were listed out which included the petitioner. It was only after due investigation that his involvement was found and proved accordingly. 8. The learned Govt. Advocate further submitted that the petitioner has also clearly admitted that he handled the file. The distribution of works dated 11th May, 2012 clearly showed that he was assigned with the works of funds allotment, monthly expenditure statement, quarterly expenditure statement and cash transaction. The inspection report of the Special Audit Team shows that he was the Bill Assistant during 10.09.2013 and 27.07.2016. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioner had admitted that he had handled the file and in the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP (C) No. 32/2022, the official who was also looking after the official files and operated the compute to pay their bills stated that she prepared the same as per the instruction of the Cashier concerned. The learned Govt. Advocate further submitted that the said Officer in the cited judgment of the Coordinate Court had taken the same plea that she was not designated with the file, however she had admitted handling the file and therefore, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had dismissed the Writ Petition i.e., WP (C) No. 32/2022 finding no merit in the writ petition. The learned Government Advocate submits that the mentioned case is similar to the instant case and the same order may be passed since the petitioner is clearly involved in the said case. She submitted that the Enquiry Officer had passed a speaking order giving reasons for its finding by considering the evidence on record, which clearly proved the involvement and guilt of the said petitioner. 9. The learned Govt. Advocate has further submitted that the scope of interference of this Court in such cases is limited as the Court is not to act as an appellate Court. She has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in (i) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 (Para 20) (ii) Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur, (2008) 14 SCC 445 (Para 37). She has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in (i) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora, (1997) 3 SCC 72 (Para 20) (ii) Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur, (2008) 14 SCC 445 (Para 37). The learned Govt. Advocate further held that the punishment of ‘Dismissal from Service’ is an adequate punishment for the offence of misappropriation committed by the petitioner. She has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in (iii) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 555 (Para 21 to 24) (iv) R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat & Anr. (2016) 14 SCC 1 (Para 16 & 20). 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 11. The Memorandum of Charge against the petitioner, is that the petitioner was involved in the fraudulent withdrawal, misappropriation and embezzlement of Government money which was discovered in the inspection report on accounts of Sub-Divisional Education Office, Darlawng dated 26.07.2016. That the petitioner had acted in a manner unbecoming a Government servant and violated the provisions of Rule 3(1)(i)ii)(iii) and Rule 3-C of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 21 of General Financial Rules and Section 13 (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 12. The petitioner denied the charge and thereafter, enquiry was conducted against him. During enquiry, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 on considering the statement of the witnesses found the petitioner guilty of committing the offence under Rule 3(1) (i)ii)(iii) and Rule 3-C of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Rule 21 of General Financial Rules and Section 13 (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 13. The statement of the petitioner in reply to Article 1 is that he was never involved in the fraudulent withdrawal, misappropriation and embezzlement of covered money and denied his involvement in the fraudulent withdrawal of pay arrears of School teachers the report submitted by the Special Audit dated 21.12.2016. The ground taken was that the Tour Notes and audit report did not indicate the particular involvement of the petitioner. The ground taken was that the Tour Notes and audit report did not indicate the particular involvement of the petitioner. He further took the stand that in the irregularities found on checking of accounts etc of SDEO Office, Darlawng though the team had conducted serious irregularities in the withdrawal of pay arrears of School teachers and huge amount of money from Government Treasury in excess of actual requirement had been drawn by SDEO Office, Darlawng but none of the drawing and disbursement officials was charged for the said irregularities instead, the petitioner and others were allegedly charged though the Inspection Team did not mentioned the involvement of the petitioner. The Tour Notes dated 06.05.2016 wherein it was charged that they had prepared abstract of the falsified pay error statement amounting to Rs. 95,23,716/- enclosed in their Tour Notes did not state the involvement or mentioned the name of the petitioner. The audit report submitted by the Special Audit Team reflected that the tenure of the petitioner serving as Cashier was during 01.12.2011 to 01.09.2013 which is correct to their statement that the petitioner was serving as Bill Assistant during 01.09.2013 to 27.07.2016 is denied since he did not served as a Bill Assistant during his entire service in the office of SDEO, Darlawng. His plea was that the out of the 170 numbers of fraudulent bills, none of them took others during his term as Cashier, wherein 21 bills were before his tenure and 149 bills were after his tenure. All the alleged double bills were also after his tenure and none of the bills, the name of the petitioner was not shown in any of the bills after considering the plea of the petitioner and enquiry report was accordingly submitted which found the petitioner guilty of committing the offence for which he was charged with. 14. The enquiry report dated 16.03.2018 has dealt with all the Articles of Charge and had also considered the stand taken by the petitioner wherein the enquiry report submitted on 16th March, 2018 consisted of 10 pages was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. It is seen that the Disciplinary Authority had given the petitioner the opportunity to submit her representation from the findings of the enquiry report and accordingly, the petitioner had submitted his representation. It is seen that the Disciplinary Authority had given the petitioner the opportunity to submit her representation from the findings of the enquiry report and accordingly, the petitioner had submitted his representation. However, a Disciplinary Authority do not accept the petitioners representation imposed the penalty of dismissal from service vide the impugned Order dated 30.09.2019. 15. This Court while considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties finds that one of the issues to be decided is with regards to whether this Court can reassess the facts recorded during the departmental proceedings. It is seen that in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749 , the Supreme Court had held that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, being the fact finding authorities have exclusive power to consider evidence. There are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal while exercising power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty should impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocked the conscience of the Court, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary authority/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, may be imposed appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support of thereof. 16. The Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora (Supra) at Para 20 also held as follows: “(i) 20. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that the High Court in such cases of departmental enquiries and the findings recorded therein does not exercise the powers of appellate court/authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court in such cases is very limited for instance where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; findings are based on no evidence, and/or the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. There is a catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions.” (ii) Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur (Supra) at Para 37 as follows: “37. There is a catena of judgments of this Court which had settled the law on this topic and it is not necessary to refer to all these decisions.” (ii) Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur (Supra) at Para 37 as follows: “37. In our opinion, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that such punishment is grossly disproportionate or excessively high. Normally in exercise of power of “judicial review” a writ court will not substitute its own judgment or decision for the judgment or decision of a disciplinary authority unless it comes to the conclusion that it has shocked the conscience of the court or the punishment is such that no “reasonable man” would impose such punishment or in the words of Lord Scarman in Nottinghamshire County Council v. Secy. of State for the Environment, 1986 AC 240 : (1986) 2 WLR 1 : (1986) 1 All ER 199 (HL) that the decision is so absurd that one is satisfied that the decision-maker at the time of making decision “must have taken leave of his senses.” 17. Thus, from the above decision of the Apex Court, it is clear that it is well settled law that this Court of interference by the Court is limited. Such interference is called for only when the penalty imposed shocked the judicial conscience of the Court, the Court ordinary does not invoke its power of judicial review on the quantum of punishment and also finds that the criteria for establishing the charge of proving charge in departmental proceedings can be achieved by preponderance of probability. From the perusal of the enquiry report and the impugned Order dated 30.09.2019, it is seen that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has considered all the grounds submitted by the petitioner, while denying the allegations made out against him and had passed reasoned orders, wherein it had concluded that the action of the petitioner was of such serious nature that it deserves dismissal from service. On considering the nature of offence which is the misappropriation amounting to a total of Rs. 1,36,45,986/- this Court does not find the penalty imposed upon the appellant to shocked the conscious of this Court. On considering the nature of offence which is the misappropriation amounting to a total of Rs. 1,36,45,986/- this Court does not find the penalty imposed upon the appellant to shocked the conscious of this Court. It is also observed that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP (C) No. 32/2022 vide its Judgment & Order dated 17.03.2023 had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, who was also one of the Officers mentioned in the Audit Report along with the present petitioner, finding that the interference of this Court is limited in such matter. 18. Thus, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the Order dated 30.09.2019, finding that the nature of charge made out against the petitioner for committing an offence of misappropriation and embezzlement of Government money being of serious nature cannot be said that the penalty imposed is access. 19. For the above reasons, this Court finds it fit to dismiss the instant writ petition and accordingly, WP (C) No. 53/2021 stands disposed of. No cost.