ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was punished with the postponement of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 16.02.2008 and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.05.2008. It is submitted that the petitioner was charged with the allegation of misconduct of collecting money and issuing power connections in an unauthorised manner. 3. The respondents conducted a detailed enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority held that the charges were proved and vide memo dated 15.10.2007, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of deferment of four increments with cumulative effect should not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the reply to the show cause notice. The disciplinary authority, after considering the reply, imposed the punishment of postponement of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed the appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, vide order dated 30.05.2008, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the writ petition challenging the orders of punishment imposed on the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged complaints submitted by the complainants were found to be not genuine. The learned counsel further submits that the order of the appellate authority is devoid of any reasoning for dismissing the appeal. That apart, he also submits that the disciplinary authority has also committed an error apparent on the face of the order in appeal, whereby the disciplinary authority has not considered the evidence in totality and arrived at an erroneous conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. It is also submitted that no criminal case was filed against the petitioner. As such prays for allowing the writ petition. 5. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that the major punishment of withholding of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner without conducting any detailed enquiry. It is also submitted that a detailed enquiry was conducted and sufficient evidence was available against the petitioner for imposing the punishment under challenge. 6. It is also submitted that a detailed enquiry was conducted and sufficient evidence was available against the petitioner for imposing the punishment under challenge. 6. The learned standing counsel further submits that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings would be limited and the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order of this Court in W.P. No.24452 of 2020, wherein it was held that an order passed without a detailed reasoning has to be set aside. 8. On the contrary, the learned standing counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy, 2023(3) SCC page 117, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. “Scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings 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. 33. As has been demonstrated above, the aspects of failure to conduct periodic inspection and the negligence in not stipulating the taking of immovable property as collateral security in the case of M/s Saraswathi Fabricators in spite of the party offering it, constrain us to conclude that there was material on record for the appellant to pass the order of penalty. 34. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel, relying upon the judgments of this Court in Nand Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1978) 3 SCC 366 and Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 378 contends that the Disciplinary Authority should arrive at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence with some degree of definiteness pointing to the guilt of the delinquent in respect of the charge against him. He would contend that a suspicion cannot be allowed to take the place of proof and scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished by recording findings merely based on ipse dixit of the Enquiry Officer. We are unable to accept the contention that the principles laid down in the above judgments are attracted to the present case. The judgments cited are clearly distinguishable, for the reasons that we have set out hereinabove, while analyzing the facts of the present case. 35. Shri Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel for the Bank relies on State Bank of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 249 . In that judgment the scope of judicial review of departmental proceedings was set out and the principle laid down in State of A.P. vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 , was reiterated, which reads as follows:- “This Court has held in State of A.P. and Others v. S. Sree Rama Rao ( AIR 1963 SC 1723 , para 7): "7. …The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence." 13. Thus, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by some evidence the High Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and independent finding on the evidence. This position of law has been reiterated in several decisions by this Court which we need not refer to, and yet by the impugned judgment the High Court has re-appreciated the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not substantiated by any material on record and the allegations leveled against the respondent no.1 do not constitute any misconduct and that the respondent no.1 was not guilty of any misconduct.” 36. It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry 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 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 reappreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. This lakshman rekha has been recognized and reiterated in a long line of judgments of this Court.” 9. Considering the submissions and the pleadings before this Court, the case of the petitioner seeking review of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority cannot be gone into by this Court. More so, when a detailed enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner, the scope of judicial review against the departmental enquiry is also limited. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the principles of natural justice were not followed while conducting the enquiry. On this premise, the writ petition fails. 10. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed without costs. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.