JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- a. For quashing of the order dated 08.09.2023 contained in memo no. 1143 issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 whereby the petitioner has been awarded with the punishment of Withholding of 01 (one) increment (year 2024) with non-cumulative effect, which will not have any adverse effect on his pension. b. For quashing of the appellate order dated 24.12.2024 whereby the respondent no. 2 has been pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred against the order dated 08.09.2023 contained in Memo no. 1143. c. For holding and declaring that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law. d. For direction upon the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner along-with litigation cost. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk on 06.08.1988 and has been performing her duties since then. In 2012, she was transferred to the SAR Court, where she worked under respondent no. 8. However, she noticed some irregularities and illegalities in the office. She met respondent no. 3 three times to report these issues and also submitted a written complaint requesting a transfer. As a result, she was transferred to Ormanjhi Circle and was officially relieved. The petitioner was suspended on 09.08.2014 on the ground that during the enquiry it has been found that the then SAR Officer has disposed of 499 cases whereas he was directed to dispose of only 106 cases and during the said period the petitioner was working as a Peshkar and therefore she was also involved. Thereafter she was served with memo of charge dated 27.12.2014and after enquiry the enquiry officer found the charges to be proved and accordingly the petitioner was punished by the order dated 15.12.2016. Against the said order the petitioner filed an appeal which also got dismissed on 05.02.2018. Thereafter the petitioner filed a writ being WPS No. 5302 of 2018 challenging both orders which was disposed off on 27.09.2022, and both the orders, i.e, punishment order & appellate order were quashed and petitioner was held entitled to get all consequential benefits. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition a member of legislative assembly made a complaint alleging tampering is SAR Case no. 374/11-12 and 419/06-07. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition a member of legislative assembly made a complaint alleging tampering is SAR Case no. 374/11-12 and 419/06-07. Based on said complaint a show-cause notice was issued to her on 15.10.2020, to which she responded on 20.10.2020. Thereafter the respondent authority issued memo of charge dated 15.01.2022 alleging following charges- 1. Petitioner was negligent in her duty 2. Lack of devotion to duty was demonstrated by the petitioner which is conduct contrary to Rule 3 (i)(ii) of the Government Servants Conduct Rules 1976. An enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 25.07.2023, concluding that the allegations against the petitioner is found to be true. A second show-cause notice was then issued on 05.08.2023, and the petitioner submitted her reply on 21.08.2023. Considering the reply, finally vide memo no. 1143 dated 08.09.2023 the petitioner has been awarded punishment of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect. Thereafter the petitioner filed writ application being WPS no. 6154 of 2023 which was dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2024 with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal which she filed but the Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal vide order dated 24.12.2024. Challenging the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated 19.04.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority petitioner has filed the present Writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had no involvement and it is she whore ported the illegal activities after observing irregularities in the office. He further submits that she had no concern with the tampering of order sheets as it was written by Ramesh Kumar Ram. He further submits that the petitioner had not tampered the records of the said cases, instead the then Ld. Special Officer had taken the records and kept them with him for a long time. He also submits that even if the petitioner was discharging her duties as a Peshkar and had assisted the SAR Officer, she cannot be held liable for the work done by the Presiding Officer. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the same set of charges earlier a departmental proceeding was conducted and she was punished but this Hon’ble court in WPS No. 5302 of 2018 has already quashed the order of punishment, thus she could not be punished twice. 4. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the same set of charges earlier a departmental proceeding was conducted and she was punished but this Hon’ble court in WPS No. 5302 of 2018 has already quashed the order of punishment, thus she could not be punished twice. 4. The learned counsel for respondent submits that in both the proceedings the charges were different. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submits that an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report dated 25.07.2023 whereby the enquiry officer held that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is found to be true. She further submits that an enquiry team was formed for a detailed enquiry in which the name of petitioner was mentioned implying that she was involved in the offence. She further submits that on the basis of the enquiry report of the Conducting Officer, the charges leveled against petitioner are found proved. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner was earlier charge sheeted as the petitioner’s conduct is not befitting to a government employee while she was performing duties of Peshkar. There was allegation that 499 cases were being disposed off from the court despite being aware of the order of Deputy Commissioner prohibiting disposal of cases and further there was allegation of getting private gain which is against Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules. The proceeding ended with imposing punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect and the petitioner was debarred from promotion for the next 3 years and the appeal was also dismissed. The petitioner had challenged the said punishment and the appellate order in a writ petition before this Court wherein the punishment order and the appellate orders were quashed. From the crux of charges against the petitioner, I find that same was for dereliction of duty. 6. Further coming to the instant case, I find that a second enquiry was conducted on the complaint of member of Legislative Assembly in which basically there is allegation of tampering with the document, for which charge was framed against the petitioner that she was negligent in her duty and shown lack of devotion to the duty, which is contrary to Rule 3(i)(ii) of Government Servant Conduct Rules. In the departmental proceeding which was numbered as Record number III 01/2022, the enquiry officer found different styles of handwriting on the case records, and there were signs of overwriting and suspicious cutting. The departmental proceeding was concluded punishing the petitioner with withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect. The appeal also got dismissed. 7. In my view the theme of both the enquiries were quite different which operates in different field of accusations. The first enquiry was conducted on the allegation of dereliction of duty however in the second enquiry the allegations were quite different as the same is for the allegation of tampering with the document. Further the scope of enquiry was also different as the first enquiry relates to disposal of large number of cases which was barred to be disposed whereas in the second enquiry (instant case) the same relates to two specific files being SAR case no. 374/11-12 and 419/ 06-07 where there is tampering with the case records. Thus, the submission of the petitioner that she was twice punished for the same misconduct does not hold good. 8. Further in the second enquiry the petitioner’s role as complicit in making the overwriting is proved. From the inquiry report I find that it has been proved by the enquiry officer that the petitioner was in custody of the files during that period and there were manipulations in the files as there were over-writings and dates were changed. Further there were fake initials of authorities on the orders and order sheets were crossed. The disciplinary authority found that there was clear evidence of overwriting and tampering in the records. 9. It is settled proposition of law that the court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence. Further if the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and findings are based on evidence, the court should not interfere. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “ Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa reported in (2024) 1 SCC 632 has held that High Court cannot act like an appellate court to recheck the facts, as long as the findings are backed by evidence and the process was proper. It is necessary to quote paragraph 63 of the said judgment- (a) Scope of interference by the High Court in judicial review 63. It is necessary to quote paragraph 63 of the said judgment- (a) Scope of interference by the High Court in judicial review 63. It may be clarified at the outset that to satisfy itself that no injustice has been meted out to the appellant, the High Court was required to examine the decision-making process and not just the final outcome. In other words, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the factual findings recorded in the departmental proceedings as long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings that cannot be faulted on account of procedural illegalities or irregularities that may have vitiated the process by which the decision was arrived at. 10. In view of the aforesaid judgment and the facts of this case, I find that the inquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner. Further I find that the petitioner was given ample opportunity of hearing. Thus, there is no illegality and impropriety in the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Further the punishment imposed is proportionate to the proved misconduct. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.