ORDER : Heard. 1. Instant petition is against the order dated 30/01/2006 whereby the order of removal from service has been passed in respect of the petitioner who was working as an Assistant Grade-III and was discharging his duties as an Execution Clerk in the District Court, Bilaspur. 2. (i)The petitioner was issued with the charge sheet by the District Judge, Bilaspur with allegation that while he was posted as Criminal Reader in the Court of Shri D.N. Shukla, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in between period 9/06/1997 to 3/09/1998 he received the property worth Rs.1450/- from different Police Stations and did not deposit in the Malkhana. Similarly, while he was posted in the court of J.M.F.C. (Shri G.S. Netam) Bilaspur from 4/02/1998 to 6/02/1999 he again received properties from different Police Stations worth Rs.8744/-and did not deposit into the Malkhana. Thereby total he received properties amounting to 10,194/- and did not deposit it in the Malkhana. Consequently, it leads to criminal breach of trust. (ii) Further charges against the petitioner were that during his tenure as an Execution Clerk, he did not deposit the criminal cases in the record room and they were bundled and hidden in the waste papers, thereby failed to discharge his job. Both allegations amounted to breach of duty as prescribed under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 (for short 'the Conduct Rules, 1965') and major penalty of removal under section 10-B of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was imposed. The petitioner was initially placed under suspension in an earlier case and during his suspension tenure, he received the subsequent charge sheet. After issuance of the charge sheet, the reply was filed wherein all the adverse allegations were denied and he sought for departmental enquiry. Accordingly, departmental enquiry was ordered which commenced on 9/05/2001. During the enquiry, the petitioner abjured all his allegations and the Enquiry Officer proceeded to conduct the enquiry. After completion of the enquiry, Enquiry Officer found the charges leveled against the petitioner to be proved and was found guilty of misconduct under Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules, 1965. 3. Acting on such report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority served enquiry report upon the petitioner and he was given opportunity of hearing to make his submission. Thereafter, his services were removed by the disciplinary authority. 3. Acting on such report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority served enquiry report upon the petitioner and he was given opportunity of hearing to make his submission. Thereafter, his services were removed by the disciplinary authority. Subsequently, instead of preferring a departmental appeal, revision was preferred before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Chhattisgarh. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice and he was intimated about the decision. Both such orders are under challenge before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the enquiry proceeding, the Enquiry Officers were frequently changed which shows the respondent authorities were acting in a prejudicial manner without application of mind. He would submit that the Presiding Judge i.e. the Additional Sessions Judge was conducting the enquiry and he held bias and subsequently as a matter of time since it was changed without the consent of the petitioner which is also illegal. He further submits that the enquiry proceeding would show that during the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer was completely swayed with a predetermined mind in the backdrop of the fact that other enquiries of the like nature were pending against the petitioner and the petitioner has suffered a suspension on that count too. Therefore, no independent appreciation of evidence was done by the Enquiry Officer. Referring to the statement of the witness, he would submit that the statement would clearly show that the deposit of certain amount in the Malkhana and the time gap cannot be attributed to the petitioner, therefore the wrong finding of fact was arrived. He further submits that the allegation of embezzlement was only of Rs.10194/- and order of removal of the petitioner so affected is shockingly disproportionate which needs an interference and for the illegality committed, the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner is liable to be reinstated with all back wages. 5. Per contra, Shri Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate would submit that the charges leveled against the petitioner were grievous in nature. He would submit that the position of the petitioner cannot be ignored that he was holding a prime position which helps in administration of the justice. 5. Per contra, Shri Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate would submit that the charges leveled against the petitioner were grievous in nature. He would submit that the position of the petitioner cannot be ignored that he was holding a prime position which helps in administration of the justice. He would further submit that the embezzlement of the amount will not only lead to disruption to cause justice but is also a misconduct involving moral turpitude for which the concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at. The counsel would submit that hiding the judicial files is serious disruption in administration of justice, therefore the concurrent finding of fact which was arrived at by the two authorities should not be set aside. He would further submit that the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India normally would only travel to the extent as to whether proper opportunity was given to petitioner during the enquiry or any bias was caused. He would submit that unless it is shown on the face of it that the order is perverse on a finding based on no evidence interference is uncalled for. He refers to order dated 4/07/2019 passed by this Court in WP No.4252/1997 in between Smt. Fulmati Choudhary Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. He also placed his reliance in the case of Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 647 and in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & Ors. Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 . 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the file and documents. 7. Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 647 and in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & Ors. Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 . 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the file and documents. 7. The charge sheet in this case is Annexure P-3 which reads as under:- dk;kZy; ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k] fcykliqj ¼N-x-½ @@ vkjksi i= @@ Øekad @nks&12&1@2000 fcykliqj] fnukad vizSy 2001 eSa] Mh-vkj- ns'keq[k] ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k ,oa vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh] fcykliqj Jh gseUr rkezdkj ¼fuyfEcr½ fu"iknu fyfid ds fo:) fuEukafdr vkjksi jksfir djrk gw¡ %& ¼1½ ;g fd vkius Jh Mh-,u- 'kqDyk] rRdkyhu vfrfjDr eq[; U;k;kf;d eftLVsªV fcykliqj ,oa Jh th-,l- usrke] U;kf;d eftLVsªV izFke Js.kh fcykliqj ds U;k;ky;ksa esa Øe'k% fnukad 09-06-1997 ls 03-09-1998 ,oa 04-09-1998 ls 06-02-1999 rd dh vof/k esa fu"iknu fyfid ¼yksd lsod½ ds in ij inLFk gksdj fofHkUu iqfyl Fkkuksa ls izkIr vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa dh lEifRr;ksa Øe'k% :i;s 1450¾00 ,oa 8744¾00 dqy :i;s 10]194¾00 vuqlwph ^^v** ,o a ^^c** esa vafdr dks izkIr djus ds mijkUr eky[kkus esa tek ugha fd;kA vkidk mDr d`R; vkijkf/kd U;kl Hkax rFkk xaHkhj dnkpj.k dk |ksrd gSA ¼2½ ;g fd vkius inLFkkiuk vof/k esa fu.khZr vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa dks vfHkys[kkxkj esa tek u dj yfEcr vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa dh dk;Zokfg;ksa dks u gksus nsdj] fofHkUu izdj.kksa] dk;Zokfg;ksa] vuqlwph ^^l** esa vafdr dks lEcU/kh izdj.kksa esa l/kkUrhiwoZd layXu u dj rFkk dpjs ds ढsj esa Nqikdj rFkk mi;ksx dh xbZ euh fjlhV ¼,e-ih-Vh-lh-&6½ vuqlwph ^^n** dks xazFkiky ds ek/;e ls vfHkys[kkxkj esa tek u dj inh; drZO; ds fuoZgu esa ?kksj mis{kk dhA vkidk mijksDr d`R; inh; drZO; ds fuoZgu esa ?kksj mis{kk rFkk dnkpj.k dk |ksrd gSA vkids mijksDr d`R; e0iz0 flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 3 dk mYya?ku gS tks e0iz0 flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 10 ds v/khu n.Muh; gSA lgh@& ¼Mh-vkj- ns'keq[k½ ftyk ,oa l= U;k;k/kh'k ,oa vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh fcykliqj ¼N-x-½ 8. Perusal of the record would show the petitioner denied the allegations and claimed to be tried. Consequently, the departmental enquiry commenced. Perusal of the record would show the petitioner denied the allegations and claimed to be tried. Consequently, the departmental enquiry commenced. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to certain statement to show that in respect of three proceedings for non depositing article allegation cannot be attributed to the petitioner but this cannot be appreciated in the light of the fact that the charges leveled were in respect of default of 19 deposits. Statement of the witness which was recorded during the trial would show the nature of allegations were proved. Perusal of the record would show that during the enquiry 14 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge. They were thoroughly cross-examined and all opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. No whisper of bias was ever raised even during the enquiry. Therefore, after conclusion of the enquiry, if finding do not find support to a delinquent, he cannot turn back to raise his objection time and again that proper opportunity was not granted. If such submissions of petitioner are accepted, it would lead to unprecedented timeless enquiry which cannot be upheld. 9. It is settled proposition that the Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India do not sit as a Court of appeal over the finding of the Enquiry Officer. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 , in para 7 the Court held as under:- “7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44], Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [ (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806], Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana [ (1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil [ (2000) 1 SCC 416 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 144].)” 11. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka & Anr. v. N. Gangaraj, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 423 held as under in para 13:- “13. In another judgment reported as Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 554, this Court held that while reappreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings : (SCC p. 617, para 13) “13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” The same view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation (supra) and in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & ors. (supra).” 12. This Court in the matter of Smt. Fulmati Choudhary Vs. (supra).” 12. This Court in the matter of Smt. Fulmati Choudhary Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. in WP No.4252/1997 while dealing with the issue the Court held as under in para 11:- “11. Once when the law is settled that in disciplinary proceedings unless there is a ground of perversity or the finding being contrary to the evidence on record or there being technical flaw in the conducting of the departmental enquiry, the Court should be slow in interfering with such findings which are based on evidence which has come on record.” 13. After going through the entire record, I do not find any iota of evidence exist on the record that any bias was caused to the petitioner. 14. Further going through the charge sheet and the finding, it would be relevant to state that petitioner was working in the court and was in hold of and in charge of the criminal cases files in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. Official position thus of the petitioner was to hold the post with all integrity. The edifice of the judiciary is based on trust and confidence of the people in administration of justice as well as in other connected works. If all the officers/employees connected with administration of justice, do not possess highest degree of integrity and honesty in all their works, the faith of the people may be collapsed. The conduct of the petitioner should have been such, which upholds the dignity of the judicial system. 15. In the case in hand, the allegation that the petitioner had kept certain files in the heap of waste papers to lose its identity and tracking. Naturally if such activities are done, it would lead to interruption of the justice delivery system. Consequently, a person of the institution or the organization cannot be held to be above the law to trickle with the administration of justice or to control dispensation of justice to have control over the system. 16. Scope and power of judicial review of the court while dealing with the validity of the quantum of punishment is well settled as laid down in (2013) 10 SCC 106 , in between Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. J. Hussain. Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the view in recent case reported in (2014) 9 SCC 315 in between Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the view in recent case reported in (2014) 9 SCC 315 in between Life Insurance Corporation of India and others Vs. S. Vasanthi and has laid down the following proposition in para 11 of the judgment:- “19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” 17. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for and as such no relief can be granted to petitioner as sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.