JUDGMENT : PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred to assail the legality, propriety, and sustainability of the charge-sheet dated 18th April, 2021; the final order of punishment dated 12th July, 2012; the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 9th May, 2017, as subsequently amended by a corrigendum dated 24th May, 2017; and the order rendered by the Reviewing Authority on 3rd January, 2020. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the aforementioned impugned documents and orders, being ex facie unsustainable in law and on facts. In addition, the petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith release all service-related dues and benefits to which the petitioner is lawfully entitled, consequent upon the annulment of the punitive actions taken against him. 2. Before delving into the controversy hovering around the writ petition, it would be appropriate to refer to the essential facts that led to the institution of the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner initially joined the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘FCI’) as a Technical Assistant, Grade-III. In due course, he was promoted to the post of Technical Assistant, Grade-I. While serving at the Food Storage Depot (in short, FSD), Mangalbari, during the period 2000–2001, under the jurisdiction of the Area Manager, Malda, FCI, the petitioner was served with a Memorandum of Charge-Sheet dated 8th April, 2021, accompanied by a Statement of Imputation of Misconduct and Misbehavior. The charge-sheet contained a single article of charge, alleging that, during his tenure as Technical Assistant, Grade-II, at the godown of FSD, Kalyani, in 1999, the petitioner failed to take adequate preventive measures to preserve the food grains. This alleged omission led to the deterioration and downgrading of the food grains while they remained stacked in the godown. Consequently, the petitioner, being a member of the Quality Control Team at the relevant time, was held accountable for the lapse. 4. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence and participated in the departmental enquiry proceedings. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence adduced by the management, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge levelled against the petitioner remained unsubstantiated. 4. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence and participated in the departmental enquiry proceedings. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence adduced by the management, the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge levelled against the petitioner remained unsubstantiated. Notwithstanding the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, in the exercise of its discretion, recorded its disagreement with the said findings and proceeded to impose a penalty of reduction in pay by three stages, with cumulative effect. Additionally, it was directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to earn his normal increments during the period of reduction. 5. The petitioner challenged the final order of punishment by filing a writ petition, being W.P. No. 16695(W) of 2006, which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court by an order dated 14th March, 2012. In its order, the Bench observed that the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment without first recording the tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, without affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit a representation against such tentative reasons, and without passing a reasoned order on merits after granting the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. 6. The Bench ultimately held that the Disciplinary Authority had acted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The procedure adopted was found to be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lav Nigam vs. Chairman and Managing Director, ITI Limited and Another , reported in (2006) 9 SCC 440 . Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings either on the basis of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, or, in the event the Disciplinary Authority was tentatively of the view that there were grounds for disagreement, by adhering strictly to the procedure prescribed in the Court’s order. The Bench further directed that, should no steps be taken within the time stipulated therein, the disciplinary proceedings would be deemed to have been dropped, and necessary steps shall be initiated to grant the petitioner all consequential service-related benefits. 7. However, the Disciplinary Authority opted to follow the procedure outlined in the order dated 14 th March, 2012 and, ultimately passed a fresh order of punishment. 7. However, the Disciplinary Authority opted to follow the procedure outlined in the order dated 14 th March, 2012 and, ultimately passed a fresh order of punishment. The penalty was modified to that of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale for a period of three years, without cumulative effect, along with a further direction that the petitioner shall not earn his normal increment during the currency of the penalty. Aggrieved by the final order of punishment dated 12th July, 2012, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which was eventually rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a review petition, which also met with dismissal. Hence, the writ petition. 8. Mrs. Papiya Chattopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, draws my attention to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents in connection with the earlier writ petition, being W.P. No. 16695(W) of 2006. She submits that the respondents themselves, in their affidavit, admitted that the downgrading of food grains commenced in May 2000 and continued until November 2000. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already been transferred from the FSD, Kalyani, in December 1999. In view of these admitted facts, Mrs. Chattopadhyay contends that the petitioner cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be held responsible for the deterioration of food grains stored in the godown at FSD, Kalyani. She further argues that during the course of the enquiry proceedings, the prosecution failed to produce any cogent or credible material to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner. Consequently, the Enquiry Officer, upon a fair assessment of the evidence brought on record by the management, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the charge levelled against the petitioner remained unproved. 9. She further submits that, in terms of Clause 60A of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1971 Regulations’), any disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee after his retirement are required to be concluded expeditiously and, in any event, within a period of eighteen months from the date of delivery of the charge-sheet to the charged official, subject to any order passed by the Court. 10. Mrs. Chattopadhyay further submits that, in the present case, there was inordinate and unjustified delay at every stage of the disciplinary proceedings. 10. Mrs. Chattopadhyay further submits that, in the present case, there was inordinate and unjustified delay at every stage of the disciplinary proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority took an excessive amount of time to conclude the enquiry, while the Appellate Authority took nearly five years to dispose of the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner. Additionally, the Reviewing Authority required approximately three years to adjudicate upon the review petition filed by the petitioner. She contends that such prolonged delays defeat the very purpose of disciplinary proceedings, which are required to be conducted expeditiously and fairly. 11. She further submits that, in terms of the applicable legal framework, the Reviewing Authority must be superior in rank to the Appellate Authority. However, in the present case, officers of the same rank acted as both the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority, which, she argues, is impermissible in law. 12. In light of the aforesaid circumstances, she prays that the charge-sheet, the final order of punishment, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the Reviewing Authority be quashed and set aside. She also seeks a direction upon the respondents to release all service-related dues and benefits in favour of the petitioner, which were unlawfully withheld pursuant to the purported disciplinary action. 13.Mr. Devajyoti Barman, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited and well-settled. It is confined to examining whether there has been any procedural irregularity or illegality in the decision-making process. He contends that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate or point out any procedural infirmity or violation of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. Mr. Barman further submits that it is impermissible for a Court, while exercising powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to sit in appeal over the findings of the Disciplinary Authority or to re-appreciate the evidence adduced by the management and/or the prosecution during the enquiry. 14.He further submits that, although the affidavit relied upon by Mrs. Chattopadhyay acknowledged that the downgrading of the food grains commenced in May 2000, the root cause of such deterioration originated during the petitioner’s tenure. 14.He further submits that, although the affidavit relied upon by Mrs. Chattopadhyay acknowledged that the downgrading of the food grains commenced in May 2000, the root cause of such deterioration originated during the petitioner’s tenure. He contends that, being a member of the Quality Control Team, it was the petitioner’s duty to take all necessary preventive measures to preserve and maintain the quality of the food grains stored at the FSD, Kalyani. 15. Referring to certain portions of the evidence, he submits that one Mr. Hazra, while giving deposition on behalf of the prosecution, stated that the downgrading commenced in January 2000. He further submits that some processes, including technical work like incubation and essential measures such as fumigation, were not carried out by the petitioner during his tenure. 16. Therefore, taking note of this fact, the petitioner was rightly held responsible. He submits that, following the incident, the FCI suffered a financial loss to the extent of Rs. 99,00,000/-. However, the FCI did not take any steps to recover that amount from the employees. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner and other employees is a deterrent measure intended to prevent such misconduct in the future. He asserts that there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the final order of punishment, the order of the Appellate Authority, or the order of the Reviewing Authority. To support his submission, he relied upon the decisions, reported at 2008 (2) MhLJ 61 ( Niraj Kumar Singh vs. Union Bank of India ), (1995) 6 SCC 749 ( B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Others ), and (2015) 2 SCC 610 ( Union of India vs. P. Gunsekharan ). 17. Heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 18. Undeniably, the scope of judicial review generally limited to the decision-making process; however, if a decision is found to be perverse, irrational, or grossly disproportionate, it falls within the purview of judicial review. Article 14 of the Constitution of India mandates fairness in the State’s action, and judicial review aims to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, reasonable bias, and mala fide conduct. Undeniably, the scope of judicial review generally limited to the decision-making process; however, if a decision is found to be perverse, irrational, or grossly disproportionate, it falls within the purview of judicial review. Article 14 of the Constitution of India mandates fairness in the State’s action, and judicial review aims to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, reasonable bias, and mala fide conduct. In a disciplinary enquiry, the delinquent employee must be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself by demonstrating that the charges leveled against him are not proved or by showing that the charges, even if proved, do not warrant severe penalties such as dismissal, reduction in pay or rank, stoppage of increment, etc. 19.Needless to emphasize, disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial or quasi-criminal in nature, and the principles of fair play apply equally in administrative, judicial, and quasi-judicial matters. When an authority assumes jurisdiction to perform a quasi-judicial function, it assumes the status of an independent arbitrator. Therefore, it is expected to act fairly, without any bias or preconceived notion. If the Courts find that the authorities acted arbitrarily, with a closed mind, or in violation of the rules of natural justice or established legal principles, they can expand the scope of judicial review to ensure that justice is served. If any decision is based on no evidence, or is made relying on irrelevant or extraneous factors or materials, it cannot be claimed that the decision was made in conformity with settled and established principles of law. 20. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority initially disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer without adhering to the settled principles of law. Neither were tentative reasons communicated to the petitioner, nor was he afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the final order of punishment. Consequently, the Co-ordinate Bench rightly set aside the impugned order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority at the earlier stage. Thereafter, despite persisting in its disagreement with the Enquiry Officer’s findings, the Disciplinary Authority, on the subsequent occasion, chose to modify the punishment to a certain extent. 21.Therefore, in the present case, there is scope to examine whether the reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority at the time of passing the subsequent order to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer were justified. 21.Therefore, in the present case, there is scope to examine whether the reasons assigned by the Disciplinary Authority at the time of passing the subsequent order to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer were justified. The final order of punishment dated 12th July, 2012, reveals that the Disciplinary Authority, after assessing the facts of the case, observed that both the depot and the Quality Control Officer were squarely responsible for the deterioration of the state of affairs, and neither could shirk their responsibility for such eventualities. 22. The authority went on to observe that, due to lack of interest and laxity on the part of the Quality Control Officers, including the petitioner, the condition of the depot had reached to an alarming state. The Disciplinary Authority further noted that although the petitioner was posted at the FSD, Kalyani, only until December 1999, and the downgrading took place in May 2000, this did not completely absolve him of responsibility in the matter described above. Since the quality of the stock could not have deteriorated all on a sudden, the Disciplinary Authority attempted to hold the petitioner responsible for the downgrading of the food grains due to dereliction of duty. Although the actual downgrading started in May 2000, the Appellate Authority observed that the downgrading commenced because there was no fumigation, which is one of the measures required to preserve the food grains. Thus, the observations made by both the Disciplinary Authorities are not sustainable, as they went beyond the evidence brought on record by the management and prosecution. 23. No evidence has been brought to the notice of this Court wherein the omission to fumigate, or the failure to undertake appropriate fumigation measures, was held to be the primary cause, or one of the causes, for the downgrading of the food grains. While the authority sought to establish that, although the downgrading commenced in May 2000, its root cause originated during the petitioner’s tenure, there is a distinct absence of convincing evidence directly linking the petitioner to the deterioration process. Consequently, it must be held that the impugned decision, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, is founded on no evidence. This glaring deficiency warrants interference by this Court in the interest of justice. Consequently, it must be held that the impugned decision, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, is founded on no evidence. This glaring deficiency warrants interference by this Court in the interest of justice. 24.Admittedly, although the Court normally does not re-appreciate the evidence, it is not debarred from examining the evidence for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether there was cogent and reliable evidence on record that led the authority to take the decision. The Court is therefore empowered to look into the evidence for this purpose. 25.There is no scintilla of doubt regarding the binding precedent of the judgments cited by Mr. Barman, however, those judgments are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied in the present case. 26.Therefore, I do not find any justification for taking disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 18th April, 2021, the final order of punishment dated 12th July, 2012, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 9th May, 2017, and the order passed by the Reviewing Authority dated 3rd January, 2020, are hereby quashed. 27.The respondents are hereby directed to release all service-related benefits to the petitioner, treating the disciplinary proceedings and the consequent order of punishment as null and void, and as if they never occurred. If deemed necessary, the respondents shall issue a revised pension payment order, re-fix the petitioner’s pension accordingly, and release all arrears of pension and other admissible dues. 28.The entire exercise shall be completed with a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 29.With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. 30.There shall, however, be no order as to costs.