JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition, under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 21.2.2015 passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 17.8.2015 passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the service of the petitioner and prayed inter alia that:- “(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21/2/2015 passed by the respondent no.3 [Annexure-A] and order dated 17/8/2015 passed by the respondent no.2 [Annexure-A]. (B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 21/2/2015 passed by the respondent no.3 [Annexure-A] and order dated 17/8/2015 passed by the respondent no.2 [Annexure-A]. (C) To grant any such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (D) To award cost of the petition." 2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was selected for the post of Junior Clerk and was appointed as such on 22/9/1981 by the respondent no.2 University. The petitioner had worked with the respondent no.3 as Junior Clerk [Cash] for the period of 24 years from 22/9/1981 to 8/5/2005. 2.1 During initial period, the petitioner requested one Mr. Mekwan to take charge of Cash, as it was condition in his order of transfer to take charge of Cashier. However, when Mr. Mekwan refused to take charge, the petitioner informed head of the unit - Dr. P.C. Patel and when Dr. P.C. Patel directed Mr. Mekwan to take charge of cash, Mr. Mekwan refused to keep charge. Therefore, Dr. P.C. Patel requested the petitioner to keep charge of cash with him. 2.2 In the meeting of the employees held on 5/7/2007, Dr. P.C. Patel had taken responsibility of any errors in the cash and also made a statement that he will make payment for the same and thus the charge of Cash was continued with the petitioner. 2.3 For some irregularity in cash maintained by the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 issued charge-sheet to the petitioner, Dr. P.C. Patel and R.A. Vohra on 1/3/2011, alleging that some financial irregularities have been committed. 2.4 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 29/3/2011 to the charge-sheet explaining that so far as allegation no. 2.3 For some irregularity in cash maintained by the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 issued charge-sheet to the petitioner, Dr. P.C. Patel and R.A. Vohra on 1/3/2011, alleging that some financial irregularities have been committed. 2.4 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 29/3/2011 to the charge-sheet explaining that so far as allegation no. 1 is concerned, the amount of difference has been deposited afterwards, the amount as alleged in allegation no. 2 of Rs.1,735/- is correct and proper, so far allegation no. 3 is concerned, the amount of Rs.1,900/- is being recovered from the salary of the petitioner, etc., and ultimately submitted that the errors are being committed because of some other difficulties. 2.5 Thereafter, Inquiry Officer Mr. R.M. Mehta was appointed vide letter dated 12/9/2011 by the respondent no. 3 and inquiry proceedings were commenced against the petitioner and others. After completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry officer submitted his report dated 31/7/2012, wherein allegation nos. 1 to 8 are held as proved and allegation nos. 9 to 12 are held as not proved. 2.6 Thereafter, respondent no. 3 issued show cause notice dated 8/8/2012 to the petitioner and the petitioner gave reply dated 24/8/2012 to the said notice, whereby the petitioner has given consent to recover the amount alleged with a view to file the notice considering the service of 21 years rendered by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner exchanged correspondence with the respondent no. 3 relating to the inquiry. On the basis of the inquiry report, the respondent no. 3 passed office order dated 21/12/2012 dismissing the petitioner from service. 2.7 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the respondent no. 2 on 22/11/2013. The respondent no. 2 issued letter dated 15/9/2014 to the petitioner regarding date of hearing being 20/9/2014. On 20/9/2014 the petitioner made statement during the hearing to the effect that no seriousness is shown while framing the charge, chargesheet is illegal, charge-sheet is not in prescribed format, list of witnesses are not there with the charge-sheet, when no charge is proved by any oral or documentary evidence, then how it can be said that the charge is proved, during inquiry Mr. V.S. Trivedi, Sr. Clerk, D.B. Gohil, Sr. Clerk, etc. were not examined as witnesses, one Mr. V.S. Trivedi, Sr. Clerk, D.B. Gohil, Sr. Clerk, etc. were not examined as witnesses, one Mr. V.P. Mekwan was dismissed from service for one year and 9 months and thereafter he was reinstated in view of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the petition filed by him etc. The petitioner has also made representation dated 14/4/2014 to the respondent no. 2 narrating full details and raising all the issues therein and that the punishment of dismissal from service is very harsh relating to audit recovery and ultimately prayed to reinstate him by setting aside the order of dismissal. 2.8 Thereafter, respondent no. 2 vide order No. AKV- 142013- 2942-K-2 dated 9/10/2014 remanded the matter to the respondent no. 3 for deciding it afresh and that on the basis of the decision that may be rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the petition being S.C.A. No. 18084/2013 filed by Dr. P.C. Patel, the decision of the punishment will have to be taken. 2.9 Thereafter the petitioner made several representations dated 15/10/2014, 3/11/2014, 10/12/2014, 1/1/2015, 27/1/ 2015 , etc., for reinstatement in service. 2.10 The respondent no. 3 passed order dated 21/2/2015 confirming the dismissal order passed against the petitioner. 2.11 The petitioner has made representations dated 25/2/2015, 27/2/2015, 9/3/2015, 17/3/2015, 25/3/2015 and 27/4/2015 to the respondent no. 2 for reinstating the petitioner in service and that it is not proved on record that the petitioner has made misappropriation, to decide the case immediately as long time has elapsed, etc. 2.12 The respondent no. 2 rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 17/8/2015, wherein it is held that both the petitioner and Dr. P.C. Patel are responsible and hence, submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted and the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner has been confirmed. 2.13 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders dated 21/2/2015 and 17/8/2015 passed by the respondent authorities, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court by way of present petition. 3. Heard Mr. Atit D. Thakore learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mitul K. Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 and Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 4. Mr. 3. Heard Mr. Atit D. Thakore learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mitul K. Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 and Ms. Nirali Sarda, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 4. Mr. Atit D. Thakore, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate authority has, after recording the findings and going through the charges levelled against the petitioner, come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is very harsh in nature and therefore, the appellate authority has remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for taking fresh decision in the matter. 4.1 Mr. Atit D. Thakore, learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though there is a specific direction given by the appellate authority to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the case, again the disciplinary authority has without examining the issue or the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner passed an order and therefore, the petitioner again approached the appellate authority. On the second time also, the appellate authority has without considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the findings recorded at the earlier point of time, confirmed the impugned order and therefore, the petitioner has preferred this petition to challenge the impugned order of punishment. 4.2 Mr. Atit D. Thakore, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the appellate authority, once come to the conclusion that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charge levelled against the delinquent i.e. present petitioner however, without considering the submissions advanced by the petitioner and without giving any independent findings or without dealing with the submission made by the petitioner has reaffirmed the order of the disciplinary authority, which is arbitrary and against the principle of natural justice and therefore, this Court may entertain the petition and pass appropriate order by interfering in the order of punishment imposed by the authority. 4.3 Mr. Atit Thakore, learned Counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that at the first instance, the officer who has passed the order remanding the matter, is sitting in appeal and again passed an order, without considering earlier observation made by him and therefore, great prejudice is caused to the petitioner and therefore, Mr. 4.3 Mr. Atit Thakore, learned Counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that at the first instance, the officer who has passed the order remanding the matter, is sitting in appeal and again passed an order, without considering earlier observation made by him and therefore, great prejudice is caused to the petitioner and therefore, Mr. Atit Thakore, learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before the Court the present petition may be entertained and the Court may pass appropriate order of reduction of punishment imposed by the authority. 5. Mr. Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent and more particularly, paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of affidavit-in-reply, wherein the respondent has dealt with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner in detailed that why the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is in proportion with the charges levelled against the petitioner. The said paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the affidavit-in-reply read as under:- "4. A. I state that the Petitioner was discharging his duties as a Junior Clerk at the Animal Husbandry Department at N.C. Farm of the Answering Respondent. The Petitioner was having an additional duty of a Cashier. B. I state that the amount received by the farm and dairy was required to be noted in the cashbook and the consolidated register and such amount received was required to be deposited in the bank by way of challan. I state that it was found that a sum of Rs. 8,44,790.50 was misappropriated. It was the duty of the cashier to maintain the accounts and the register. I state that apart from maintaining the cashbook the Petitioner was required to check whether Drawing and Disbursing Officer signs the cashbook. I state that the Petitioner failed to observe his duties as a Cashier due to which the amount received from the farm has not been deposited within the prescribed time or a lesser amount than the amount received was deposited. C. I state that the Petitioner by its communication dated 14.07.2010 has agreed to misappropriating funds of the Answering Respondent and has deposited part of the amount with interest. D. I state that that on 01.03.2011 the Petitioner was issued a charge sheet with regards to 12 charges of misappropriation from the University Fund and negligence in discharging duties. C. I state that the Petitioner by its communication dated 14.07.2010 has agreed to misappropriating funds of the Answering Respondent and has deposited part of the amount with interest. D. I state that that on 01.03.2011 the Petitioner was issued a charge sheet with regards to 12 charges of misappropriation from the University Fund and negligence in discharging duties. I state that the Petitioner had not acted in accordance with Rule 1 (acceptance of money), Rule 4 (duties of keeping account/discharging responsibilities) of the Gujarat State Financial Rules, 1971 and committed breach of Rule 3 of Gujarat State (Conduct) Rules, 1971. I state that the Petitioner on 29.03.2011 replied to the same. E. I state that the Answering Respondent instituted departmental proceedings on 07.04.2011 against the Petitioner after informing him of all the charges leveled against him. I state that the hearing commenced on 12.09.2011 and ended on 23.05.2012. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 31.07.2012. I state that out of the 12 charges, 8 charges were established against the Petitioner. F. I state that on considering the report, the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 08.08.2012. I state that on 24.08.2012 the Petitioner replied to the show cause notice. I state that the Petitioner in his reply stated that Rs. 3,42,840.50 is required to be recovered. Amongst various other ways the Petitioner suggested that the amount be recovered from his salary. G. On 21.12.2012, the Vice Chancellor in exercise of the powers vested in him imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. I state that thereafter, the Petitioner addressed a communication requesting reinstatement. H. I state that the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Vice Chancellor was put up before the Board of Management in its meeting dated 16.02.2013, vide item no. 7.11. I. I state that the Board of Management in its meeting dated 23.01.2013 vide item no. 31.10 confirmed the order of dismissal of the Petitioner. J. I state that Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 50(3) of the Gujarat Agriculture University Act, 2004. The Agriculture and Cooperation Department by its order dated 09.10.2014 remanded the matter to the Vice Chancellor of the Answering Respondent and directed the Answering Respondent to review the punishment imposed on the Petitioner. The departmental inquiry was found to be proper and correct and the decision in Appeal was not challenged by the Petitioner any further and became final. The Agriculture and Cooperation Department by its order dated 09.10.2014 remanded the matter to the Vice Chancellor of the Answering Respondent and directed the Answering Respondent to review the punishment imposed on the Petitioner. The departmental inquiry was found to be proper and correct and the decision in Appeal was not challenged by the Petitioner any further and became final. K. I state that on 10.12.2014, the Vice Chancellor of the Answering Respondent addressed a communication to the Petitioner directing him to appear. The Petitioner appeared before the Vice Chancellor of the Answering Respondent on 15.12.2014, The Petitioner thereafter on 01.01.2015 made a representation stating that he should be reinstated. L. I state that on 21.01.2015, the matter was again placed before the Board of Management. The Board of Management vide item no. 36.14 held that the Vice Chancellor has the authority to take the decision. M. I state that on 21.02.2015, the Vice Chancellor of the Answering Respondent passed an order continuing the order of dismissal against the Petitioner. N. I state that the Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 21.02.2015. The Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Government of Gujarat confirmed the order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner. 5. I submit that the decision of the Answering Respondent is in compliance of law. I state that on several occasions the Petitioner herein has admitted to the misappropriation of the funds and in response to the 2nd show cause notice expressed his willingness to refund the amount misappropriated. The charges against the Petitioner have been proved in a full fledge departmental inquiry. The validity of the departmental enquiry has been found to be proper and the decision has attained finality. On the question of punishment, the matter has been reconsidered by the Competent Authority and the order of dismissal has been found to be proper and the said order has also been confirmed by the State Government. I submit that having misappropriated such a huge amount from the public exchequer; having admitted to such misappropriation and the misappropriation otherwise having been proved in the departmental inquiry, the decision of the Answering Respondent in terminating the services of the Petitioner cannot be said to be unjust or illegal. The charges against the Petitioner were serious in nature. The Petitioner held an office of Trust. The charges against the Petitioner were serious in nature. The Petitioner held an office of Trust. The punishment of dismissal from services is just and proportionate to the nature of the offence committed by the Petitioner. The present writ petition is devoid of merits and is required to be rejected as such." 5.1 Mr. Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondent, has on merits also pointed out the gravement of 12 charges levelled against the present petitioner and also relied upon the specific findings recorded by the inquiry officer which was subsequently confirmed by the appellate authority. Mr. Shelat, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that once the disciplinary authority, after relying upon the report of the inquiry officer and after going through record and proceedings and the evidence led by the inquiry officer, has passed the order of punishment, normally this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India may not interfere in the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and subsequently confirmed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority. 6. It is appropriate to take into account 12 - charges levelled against present petitioner. The charges levelled against present petitioner are as same as the charges levelled against the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 18084 of 2013. The said 12 charges levelled against present petitioner are as under:- "1. Charge -1 :- As per Challan No. 204 dated 14/07/2010 of the Co-Research Scientist N.C. Farm, Anand, cash balance of Rs. 1,35,600/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred only) as on 31/03/2009 was found to have been embezzled. The aforesaid amount was deposited in the university fund on 14/07/2010. As aforesaid amount was deposited in the university fund after delay, interest of Rs. 21,896/- was deposited in the university fund. Thus, you committed financial embezzlement of Rs. 1,35,600/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred only) and accordingly, as per Rule 1 of the Gujarat State Financial Rules – receipt of money and Rule 4 – duties as regards maintenance of accounts, which state that all money received in the office should be taken into account without delay under the provisions of the Constitution, and all financial transactions should be properly accounted/entered in the prescribed Forms/ Registers. These accounts should be complete and correct, accurate and despatched within the prescribed date, which is not found to have been complied with. Hence a serious financial negligence is shown in the performance of (your) duties. By doing so, you have also violated Rule 3(1)(1) of Gujarat State (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and you are liable for the same. 2. Charge 2 :- As per Challan No. 205 dated 20/07/2010 of the Co-Research Scientist N.C. Farm, Anand (enclosure 3), as per per local fund audit para no. 22, financial embezzlement of Rs. 1735/- (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Five only) was committed on 03/07/2008. The aforesaid amount was deposited in the university fund on 14/07/2010. Thus, you committed financial embezzlement of Rs. 1735/- (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Five only) and accordingly, as per Rule 1 of the Gujarat State Financial Rules – receipt of money and Rule 4 – duties as regards maintenance of accounts, which state that all money received in the office should be taken into account without delay under the provisions of the Constitution, and all financial transactions should be properly accounted/entered in the prescribed Forms/Registers. These accounts should be complete and correct, accurate and despatched within the prescribed date, which is not found to have been complied with. Hence, a serious financial negligence is shown in the performance of (your) duties. By doing so, you have also violated Rule 3(1)(1) of Gujarat State (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and you are liable for the same. 3. Charge 3 :- As per local fund audit para no. 23 (enclosure 4), the financial embezzlement of Rs. 19,046/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Forty Six only) was committed during the period from 17/09/2008 to 06/03/2009. accordingly, as per Rule 1 of the Gujarat State Financial Rules – receipt of money and Rule 4 – duties as regards maintenance of accounts, which state that all money received in the office should be taken into account without delay under the provisions of the Constitution, and all financial transactions should be properly accounted/entered in the prescribed Forms/Registers. These accounts should be complete and correct, accurate and despatched within the prescribed date, which is not found to have been complied with. Hence, a serious financial negligence is shown in the performance of (your) duties. These accounts should be complete and correct, accurate and despatched within the prescribed date, which is not found to have been complied with. Hence, a serious financial negligence is shown in the performance of (your) duties. By doing so, you have also violated Rule 3(1)(1) of Gujarat State (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and you are liable for the same. 4. Charge – 4 :- As per the column-2 (enclosure 5 to 36) of the form for depositing money in the office, amount mentioned in the column no. 4 was received on the date mentioned in the column no. 3. The said amount has not been deposited in the university fund till date and it appears to have been embezzled. Sr. no. Form Nos. for depositing money in the Office Date Amount Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 12910 19/04/2006 26,900.00 Not entered in Income Register as well as in Cash Book 2 13049 29/12/2006 14,423.00 3 13053 05/01/2007 20,070.00 4 13139 16/08/2007 380.00 5 383192 25/09/2007 11,200.00 6 383194 06/11/2007 12,800.00 7 22629 26/12/2007 170.00 8 383197 03/01/2008 12,000.00 9 383198 11/01/2008 12,000.00 10 22906 17/01/2008 7,560.00 11 22911 28/01/2008 3,420.00 12 22916 12/02/2008 8,595.00 13 22917 26/02/2008 19,362.00 14 22918 27/02/2008 3,780.00 15 22919 07/03/2008 4,916.00 16 22920 10/03/2008 6,322.50 17 22921 12/03/2008 5,040.00 18 22931 23/04/2008 7,965.00 19 22936 02/05/2008 14,805.00 20 4604 16/05/2008 13,600.00 21 22937 17/05/2008 6,300.00 22 4605 05/06/2008 15,470.00 23 22953 19/07/2008 2,424.00 24 13177 21/07/2008 340.00 25 22955 24/07/2008 26,583.00 26 4608 12/08/2008 18,700.00 27 22958 12/08/2008 16,284.00 28 22959 22/08/2008 13,020.00 29 13181 26/08/2008 425.00 30 4609 15/09/2008 12,750.00 31 12787 16/10/2008 7,268.00 32 12791 18/11/2008 15,821.00 Total Sum :- 3,40,693.50 In view of aforesaid facts, as per Rule 1 of the Gujarat State Financial Rules – receipt of money and Rule 4 – duties as regards maintenance of accounts, which state that all money received in the office should be taken into account without delay under the provisions of the Constitution, and all financial transactions should be properly accounted/entered in the prescribed Forms/ Registers. These accounts should be complete and correct, accurate and despatched within the prescribed date, which is not found to have been complied with. Hence, a serious financial negligence is shown in the performance of (your) duties. These accounts should be complete and correct, accurate and despatched within the prescribed date, which is not found to have been complied with. Hence, a serious financial negligence is shown in the performance of (your) duties. By doing so, you have also violated Rule 3(1)(1) of Gujarat State (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and you are liable for the same. 5. Charge – 5 :- The following amount was received through receipt book in the office. The said amount has not been deposited in the university fund till date and it appears to have been embezzled. Sr. no. Receipt book no. Receipt No. Date Amount 1 3429 342876 03/07/2006 605 2 3430 342961 19/03/2007 500 3 342912 13/10/2007 1,600 4 3431 343041 16/10/2007 48 5 343060 28/02/2008 96 Total Sum :- 2,849/- In view of aforesaid facts, as per Rule 1 of the Gujarat State Financial Rules – receipt of money and Rule 4 – duties as regards maintenance of accounts, which state that all money received in the office should be taken into account without delay under the provisions of the Constitution, and all financial transactions should be properly accounted/entered in the prescribed Forms/ Registers. These accounts should be complete and correct, accurate and despatched within the prescribed date, which is not found to have been complied with. Hence, a serious financial negligence is shown in the performance of (your) duties. By doing so, you have also violated Rule 3(1)(1) of Gujarat State (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and you are liable for the same. 6. Charge-6 :- The total of closing balance of Rs. 39,465/- as on 12/01/2007 (enclosure 42) and income of Rs. 53,011/- as on 15/01/2007 (enclosure 42) amount to Rs. 92,476/-, but Rs. 87,776/- has been deposited in the university fund (enclosure 4) and Rs. 4700/- has not been deposited in the university fund till date and it appears to have been embezzled. serious financial negligence is shown in the performance of (your) duties. By doing so, you have also violated Rule 3(1)(1) of Gujarat State (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and you are liable for the same. 7. 4700/- has not been deposited in the university fund till date and it appears to have been embezzled. serious financial negligence is shown in the performance of (your) duties. By doing so, you have also violated Rule 3(1)(1) of Gujarat State (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and you are liable for the same. 7. Charge-7 : (1) Upon indicating in the consolidated register the amount of Rs.0.90 less on 20/04/2002 (enclosure-45), the amount of Rs.91/- less on 10/01/2007 (enclosure-46), the amount of Rs.10,000/- less on 26/03/2007 (enclosure- 47) and thereby in total amount of Rs.10,092/- (In words Rs.Ten Thousand Ninety Two only) and (2) Upon indicating in the consolidated register the amount of Rs.20,000/- (In words Rs.Twenty Thousand only) less on 14/02/2008 (enclosure-48) and (3) Upon indicating in the consolidated register the amount of Rs.46,800/- (Rs.Forty Six Thousand Eight Hundred only) less on 05/03/2008 (enclosure-49) and (4) Upon indicating in the consolidated register the amount of Rs.79,575/- (In words Rs. Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only) less on 30/06/2008 (enclosure-50), the delinquent has shown serious financial negligence and has not deposited till date the aforesaid total amount of Rs.1,56,467/- (In words Rs.One Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Seven only) in the university fund and it appears the embezzlement has been committed. Accordingly, you are responsible for the violation of rule- 3(1)(1) of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules (Conduct) Rules, 1971. 8. Charge-8 : Upon indicating less amount of Rs.20,000/- in the cashbook on 19/12/2007 (enclosure-44), the delinquent has shown serious financial negligence and has not deposited till date the aforesaid total amount of Rs.20,000/- (In words Rs.Twenty Thousand only) in the university fund and it appears the embezzlement has been committed. Accordingly, you are responsible for the violation of rule-3(1)(1) of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules (Conduct) Rules, 1971. 9. Charge-9 : It is indicated in the register that during the period from the month of April-06 to March-07, the income as indicated in the column-4 below was received at N.C.Farm, Chharodi. Against the same, the amount as mentioned in the column-5 has been deposited through chalan in the university fund. No. Month Conso. receipt reg. 9. Charge-9 : It is indicated in the register that during the period from the month of April-06 to March-07, the income as indicated in the column-4 below was received at N.C.Farm, Chharodi. Against the same, the amount as mentioned in the column-5 has been deposited through chalan in the university fund. No. Month Conso. receipt reg. Page number Total income indicated in the register Amount deposited in the bank through chalan 1 2 3 4 5 1 April-06 1 to 3 63189.00 20359.00 2 May-06 3 to 5 46766.00 63195.00 3 June-06 5 to 8 52231.00 52874.00 4 July-06 8 to 11 62545.00 35437.00 5 August-06 11 to 14 99116.00 102061.00 6 September-06 14 to 18 185586.00 138829.00 7 October-06 18 to 21 138506.00 151050.00 8 November-06 21 to 25 157164.00 115933.00 9 December-06 26 to 29 214754.00 295458.00 10 January-07 30 to 34 1476365.00 1219352.00 11 February-07 35 to 39 639128.00 856608.00 12 March-07 39 to 43 76192.00 133373.00 Total 3211142.00 3184529.00 Thus, as per the above details, upon indicating less the amount of Rs.26,613/- (In words Rs.T wenty Six Thousand Six Hundred and Thirteen only), you have shown serious financial negligence and you have not deposited till date the aforesaid amount in the university fund and it appears the embezzlement of the amount has been committed. Accordingly, you have violated the provision of Rule-3(1)(1) of the Gujarat Civil Services (conduct) Rules, 1971. You are responsible for the same. 10. Charge-10 : It is mentioned in the register that during the period from the month of April-07 to March-08, the income as mentioned below in the column-4 was received. Against the same, the amount as mentioned in the column-5 has been deposited in the university fund through chalan. Fund No. Month Conso. Receipt reg. 10. Charge-10 : It is mentioned in the register that during the period from the month of April-07 to March-08, the income as mentioned below in the column-4 was received. Against the same, the amount as mentioned in the column-5 has been deposited in the university fund through chalan. Fund No. Month Conso. Receipt reg. Page number Total income indicated in the register Amount deposited in the bank through chalan 1 2 3 4 5 1 April-07 1 to 3 265644.41 288802.41 2 May-07 3 to 8 101989.00 81963.00 3 June-07 9 to 19 558033.00 531935.00 4 July-07 20 to 27 128479.00 233508.00 5 August-07 27 111522.00 43924.00 6 September-07 31 to 32 139453.00 219343.00 7 October-07 34 65640.00 64772.00 8 November-07 37 122733.00 98483.00 9 December-07 40 73516.00 38533.00 10 January-08 43 618158.00 564855.00 11 February-08 48 91002.00 141779.00 12 March-08 50 96808.00 59935.00 Total :- 2372977.41 2367832.41 Thus, as per the above details, upon indicating less the amount of Rs.5,145/- (In words Rs. Five Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five only), serious negligence has been shown, the said amount has not been deposited to the university fund till date and it appears embezzlement has been committed in the matter. Accordingly, provision of rule-3(1)(1) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 is violated. You are responsible for the same. 11. Charge-11 : As per the consolidated register, from the month of April-08 to March-09, the income as mentioned below in the column-4 was received. Against the same, the amount as mentioned in the column-5 has been deposited in the university fund through chalan. Fund. No Month Conso. Receipt reg. You are responsible for the same. 11. Charge-11 : As per the consolidated register, from the month of April-08 to March-09, the income as mentioned below in the column-4 was received. Against the same, the amount as mentioned in the column-5 has been deposited in the university fund through chalan. Fund. No Month Conso. Receipt reg. Page number Total income indicated in the register Amount deposited in the bank through chalan 1 April-08 1 to 5 552813 358478 2 May-08 5 to 8 208776 326282 3 June-08 8 to 12 250298 204200 4 July-08 13 to 16 378579 32112 5 August-08 16 to 17 104428 321504 6 September-08 17 to 19 31500 90921 7 October-08 19 to 21 147659 68811 8 November-08 22 to 24 97453 147119 9 December-08 25 to 27 238360 218752 10 January-09 27 to 30 299012 353982 11 February-09 31 21020 21390 12 March-09 31 to 34 287223 287223 Total :- 2617121 2430774 Thus, as per the above details, upon indicating less the amount of Rs.50,747/- (In words Rs.Fifty Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Seven only), serious negligence has been shown, the said amount has not been deposited to the university fund till date and it appears embezzlement has been committed in the matter. Accordingly, provision of rule-3(1)(1) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 is violated. You are responsible for the same. 12: Charge-12 : Similarly, as per the revolving fund consolidated register, it is indicated that during the period from the month of April-08 to March-09, the income as indicated in the column-4 below was received at N.C.Farm, Chharodi. Against the same, the amount as mentioned in the column-5 has been deposited through chalan in the university fund. No Month Conso. Receipt reg. Against the same, the amount as mentioned in the column-5 has been deposited through chalan in the university fund. No Month Conso. Receipt reg. Page number Total income indicated in the register Amount deposited in the bank through chalan 1 2 3 4 5 1 April-08 13 209767.00 195554.00 2 May-08 14 to 16 634090.00 634205.00 3 June-08 16 to 21 539215.00 473853.00 4 July-08 21 to 22 27990.00 0.00 5 August-08 22 to 23 26035.00 52290.00 6 September-08 – 0.00 0.00 7 October-08 23 to 24 68542.00 68542.00 8 November-08 25 to 26 407157.00 407157.00 9 December-08 27 270664.00 254257.00 10 January-09 27 to 28 61799.00 78206.00 11 February-09 – 0.00 0.00 12 March-09 - 0.00 0.00 Total :- 2245259.00 2164064.00 Thus, as per the above details, upon indicating less the amount of Rs.81,195/- (In words Rs. Eighty One Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Five only), serious negligence has been shown, the said amount has not been deposited to the university fund till date and it appears embezzlement has been committed in the matter. Accordingly, provision of rule- 3(1)(1) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 is violated. You are responsible for the same." 7. In view of the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed by the authority is disproportionate to the charge, I am of the opinion that this Court should not sit in Appeal to evaluate the evidence or the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and confirmed by the disciplinary authority. This Court has very limited scope to interference in the matter of departmental proceedings and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 8. So far as submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority has passed the order of punishment mechanically without considering the submissions advanced by the petitioner and once the appellate authority has remanded the matter then the authority ought to have considered the matter independently without influenced by the earlier order passed by the authority is concerned, I am of the opinion that in the similar petition being Special Civil Application No.18084 of 2013, this Court has observed that the scope of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is very limited and therefore, I am of the opinion that present petition is devoid of any merit and the same requires to be dismissed 9. From 2001 onward, the Hon'ble Apex Court is in consistent view that the scope and ambit to interfere in the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority is very limited and lastly the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Vs. A. G. D. Reddy reported in 2023 (3) All India Services Law General 117, has observed the scope of judicial review and the proceedings. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held and observed in paragraph Nos. 32 and 37 as under:- “32. From the above discussion, it is clear that it could not be said that the Enquiry Report, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the order of the Appointing Authority are based on no evidence or are perverse. Even if we eschew the report insofar as the aspect of non-submission of control form, the transgression of the area of operation and non-declaration of the immovable property and certain other charges are concerned, the order of penalty can be sustained. 36. It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review against a departmental proceeding is very limited. It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible. The scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft he of any evidence. If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the Court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. This lakshman rekha has been recognized and le reiterated in a long line of judgments of this Court. 37. In the present case, it could certainly not be said that the report is based on no evidence or that it is perverse. The learned Single Judge transgressed the limits of judicial review in setting aside the enquiry proceedings and the punishment imposed. The Division Bench, in a short order has, after extracting a part of the learned Single Judge's judgment, gone on to hold that having perused the records of the enquiry they do not find that the charges have been dealt with in any manner of specificity. Thereafter they conclude that the learned Single Judge was justified in arriving at its conclusion. Thereafter they conclude that the learned Single Judge was justified in arriving at its conclusion. We are not able to sustain the orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench." 10. Considering principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court from time to time, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority does not deserve to be interfered with and the petition does not deserve to be entertained. Hence, the present petition is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this petition fails. Hence, present petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.