JUDGMENT : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) Heard Sri S.Goutham, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire material available on record. 2. The order passed by learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25421 of 2021, dated 20.04.2023, dismissing the said Writ Petition, and thereby, confirming the proceedings, dated 27.05.2020, of respondent No.1, whereby the contract agreement with the appellant was permanently terminated and he was disqualified for further employment under respondent No.3 society, as well as the consequential proceedings dated 19.08.2021 issued by respondent No.3 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, is under challenge in the present Writ Appeal. 3. The facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, are that on issuance of notification for the post of Project Officer, the appellant responded to the same and that pursuant to the selection made by the Selection Committee constituted by respondent No.4, the appellant was appointed as Project Officer in PMKSY, Water Development Centre, Nalgonda, on contract basis, vide proceedings issued by respondent No.4, dated 09.08.2011. While so, on publication of a news article in ‘Andhra Jyothi’ Telugu daily newspaper regarding diversion of PMKSY funds to the account of a private person and also on the representation made by the State President of RTI Act alleging that the appellant has misappropriated the said funds, respondent No.2 appointed one Sangeeta Lakshmi, District Horticulture and Sericulture Officer, Nalgonda, as Enquiry Officer. The said Enquiry Officer, after completion of enquiry, submitted a report, dated 15.02.2020, holding that due to negligence of the appellant, Watershed Development Fund (WDF) amount to a tune of Rs.10.72 lakhs was diverted into the account of an unauthorized person by name Azmeera Rambabu. Later, a charge memo dated 19.03.2020 was issued to the appellant and he was placed under suspension on the even date. The Disciplinary authority-respondent No.1, based on the enquiry report, and as the explanation submitted by the appellant was not convincing, passed orders dated 27.05.2020 terminating the contract agreement of the appellant and disqualifying him for further employment under the society in any cadre. On appeal against the said order by the appellant, respondent No.3 vide order dated 19.08.2021 dismissed the said appeal. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said orders before learned single Judge of this Court, vide Writ Petition No.25421 of 2021. Hence, the present Writ Appeal is filed. On appeal against the said order by the appellant, respondent No.3 vide order dated 19.08.2021 dismissed the said appeal. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said orders before learned single Judge of this Court, vide Writ Petition No.25421 of 2021. Hence, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that as per Rule 6.3 of the Disciplinary Rules for FTE’s of SRDS, respondent No.3 is the competent authority to pass orders of termination, whereas in the instant case, respondent No.1 without having any jurisdiction, passed the order terminating the contract agreement of the appellant and disqualified him for further employment under the society in any cadre. He further contended that the learned single Judge has failed to consider the said Rule in a proper perspective and erred in confirming the order passed by respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel further contended that even assuming that there was any negligence on the part of the appellant in misappropriation of funds, as the same falls under the ambit of minor penalty, the learned single Judge ought to have set aside the impugned orders therein. He further contended that without involvement of Computer Operator, no FTOs can be generated and as such, the appellant alone cannot be held responsible for misappropriation of funds, but, the learned single Judge failed to consider the said aspect and passed the impugned order confirming the termination orders passed by respondent No.1. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents contended that in the impugned order, the learned single Judge has dealt with all the contentions raised by the appellant, including the aspect of competency of the authority in passing the order of termination, and on considering the entire facts of the case, learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition assigning cogent reasons therefor and hence, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court and the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. 7. It is settled principle of law that the writ Court in exercise of power of judicial review cannot sit as an appellate forum and re-appreciate the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry and come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at in the domestic enquiry unless the proceedings are perverse and are passed with improper appreciation of evidence or without any evidence. 8. The scope of judicial review against departmental proceedings is very narrow and confined to whether procedural formalities are complied; whether delinquent employee was given reasonable opportunity to establish his defence; whether there is appreciation of material on record before holding the employee guilty; whether the findings are arrived based on surmises and conjunctures; whether disciplinary authority considered the material on record and arrived at an independent conclusion; and whether the concerned authority is having bias and prejudice against the employee and acted against the interest of the employee without observing due process and with pre-determined notion of guilt. 9. In the instant case, the appellant has not attributed any bias to the disciplinary authority or contended that any prejudice is caused to him, nor was it the case of the appellant that the enquiry was conducted without giving him reasonable opportunity of putting forth his defence and establishing the same. The misappropriation of funds of PMKSY by the appellant having come to light, proceedings were issued appointing an Enquiry Officer, who, conducted enquiry and submitted a report holding that misappropriation of funds had occurred due to the negligence of the appellant. Later, the appellant was issued a charge memo, to which, he submitted his explanation. Not being convinced with the said explanation, respondent No.1 passed orders dated 27.05.2020 terminating the contract of the appellant and disqualifying him for further employment under the society in any cadre. Thus, it is evident that proper procedure was duly followed in conducting departmental enquiry against the appellant and the disciplinary authority, based on the material available on record, passed the orders terminating the contract services of the appellant. 10. Therefore, from the above, in the instant case, this Court holds that there is no scope of judicial review against the departmental proceedings initiated against the appellant. 11. 10. Therefore, from the above, in the instant case, this Court holds that there is no scope of judicial review against the departmental proceedings initiated against the appellant. 11. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.1 was not competent authority to pass the orders of termination, it is to be seen that during the pendency of enquiry proceedings against the appellant for the alleged misappropriation of funds by him, the appellant has remitted the entire misappropriated amount of Rs.10,72,694/- on his own volition on 06.04.2020, i.e., after submission of enquiry report by the enquiry officer and during the pendency of further disciplinary proceedings. This act and conduct on the part of the appellant clearly goes to show that he admitted his misconduct. That being the case, the appellant cannot merely project the lacunae or attack the order of termination on technicalities. The jurisdiction or competency of respondent No.1 in passing the order of termination was not raised by the appellant at any time in the disciplinary proceedings. However, he raised the said contention for the first time before the learned single Judge of this Court, which was negatived for the reasons stated therein. Though, the aspect of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kiran Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and others, (1955) 1 SCR 117 , in the circumstances of the given case, where the appellant has on his own volition remitted the entire alleged misappropriated amount, the said aspect of jurisdiction/competency of authority in passing the termination order becomes insignificant and the appellant cannot seek intervention of this Court merely on that aspect. Furthermore, it is apparent from record that a criminal case, vide Crime No.61 of 2020 registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC with regard to the alleged misappropriation of funds is pending. Therefore, this Court exercising the power of judicial review, the scope of which is very narrow, cannot sit or prevail over the decision of the disciplinary authority and render a finding thereon. 12. Therefore, this Court exercising the power of judicial review, the scope of which is very narrow, cannot sit or prevail over the decision of the disciplinary authority and render a finding thereon. 12. Further, a perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the learned single Judge has dealt with the contentions raised by the appellant as well as the respondents and held that the appellant has not co-operated with the Enquiry Officer and scuttled with the enquiry process. The learned single Judge also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Hukam Chand, (2009) 11 SCC 222 wherein it is held as under:- “Compliance with the principles of natural justice, either by holding an enquiry or by giving the employee an opportunity of hearing or showing cause, is necessary, where an employer proposes to punish an employee on a charge of misconduct which is denied, or when any term or condition of employment is proposed to be altered to the employee's disadvantage without his consent. On the other hand, if there is an admission of misconduct, or if the employee pleads guilty in respect of the charge, or if the employee consents to the alteration of any terms and condition of service, or where the employee himself seeks the alteration in the conditions of service, there is no need for holding an enquiry or for giving an opportunity to the employee to be heard or show cause. Holding an employee guilty of a misconduct on admission, or altering the conditions of service with consent, without enquiry or opportunity to show cause, does not violate the principles of natural justice." 13. In the case on hand, from the act of the appellant by remitting the entire alleged misappropriated amount, an inference can be drawn that he admitted his misconduct, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, there is no need of conducting any enquiry or giving opportunity to show cause and the same does not violate the principles of natural justice. Nonetheless, in the instant case, an enquiry was conducted, a charge memo was issued, the delinquent employee submitted his explanation to the same, a regular department enquiry was conducted, wherein the delinquent employee was afforded opportunity of hearing, etc. Nonetheless, in the instant case, an enquiry was conducted, a charge memo was issued, the delinquent employee submitted his explanation to the same, a regular department enquiry was conducted, wherein the delinquent employee was afforded opportunity of hearing, etc. As such, though the act of delinquent employee remitting the alleged entire misappropriated funds indirectly amounts to admission of his misconduct, regular departmental proceedings were undertaken and ultimately, the order of termination was passed. 14. Therefore, in the light of the above judgment, keeping aside the competency/jurisdiction of respondent No.1 in passing the order of termination, this Court finds that there is no violation of principles of natural justice either in holding enquiry or in giving the appellant an opportunity of putting forth his defence and as such, no prejudice is caused to him. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the learned single Judge has appreciated the case from a proper perspective and has assigned proper reasons for confirming the order of termination and has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 16. Therefore, this Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 17. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.