ORDER : SUNITA AGARWAL, J. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2794 OF 2025:- Mr. A.R.Thacker, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the the respondents. There is no objection to the delay. The delay in filing the instant Appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned. The Registry is directed to allot the regular number to the Appeal, forthwith. ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.735 OF 2025:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ-petition challenging the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner which has resulted into the submission of the Inquiry Report dated 15.11.2010 and the order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, has been dismissed. 2. We may record that there is no dispute about the procedure having been adopted during the course of departmental inquiry. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 10.05.2010 on the charges of grave negligence and lack of supervision over his subordinates and after holding full-fledged disciplinary inquiry, wherein, the petitioner had participated, the punishment of reversion to the post of Office Superintendent from the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) was inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority. The departmental appeal filed against the order of the Disciplinary Authority has also been dismissed. 3. A perusal of the relief prayed in the writ-petition shows that there was no substantial challenge to the Inquiry Report dated 15.11.2010 on any of the grounds available for challenge to the correctness of the inquiry report, itself. The challenge was to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 29.03.2011 of punishment and the order passed in the Departmental Appeal. Prayer is also to quash the entire departmental proceedings initiated vide charge- sheet dated 10.05.2010. We may note that the petitioner could not substantiate the relief for quashing of the entire departmental proceedings initiated with the charge-sheet dated 10.05.2010 as no ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Inquiry Officer has been pressed before the learned Single Judge. 4. Prayer is also to quash the entire departmental proceedings initiated vide charge- sheet dated 10.05.2010. We may note that the petitioner could not substantiate the relief for quashing of the entire departmental proceedings initiated with the charge-sheet dated 10.05.2010 as no ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Inquiry Officer has been pressed before the learned Single Judge. 4. As is reflected from the order passed by the learned Single Judge, upon submission of the Inquiry Report on 02.02.2011 to the second show-cause notice, the petitioner made a representation, which was considered by the Personal Committee of the Corporation in its meeting held on 17.03.2011, which has decided to impose major penalty of reversion by the impugned order dated 29.03.2011. No ground has been raised nor pressed about the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority inflicting punishment. 5. As regards the challenge to the merit of the order of the disciplinary authority, it is recorded by the learned Single Judge that the inquiry report dated 15.11.2010 categorically records that the petitioner, who was posted as Assistant Manager (Audits/Accounts), was required to carry out necessary monitoring, being a responsible officer, of the work of his subordinate Mr. Bhavsar and had he would maintain regularity and care in the bank transactions at respective times, the issue of misappropriation/ withdrawal of the Corporation’s money through duplicate (bogus) cheques could have been noticed earlier and on time, and the money of the Corporation could have been saved. It was noted that the delinquent namely, the petitioner herein was duty bound to keep such supervision over his subordinate staff, which duty had not been performed properly by him. When the bank book was not maintained regularly and the bank reconciliation was also not done, the petitioner was required to make an inquiry with the State Bank of India regarding the credit amount of Corporation with the bank, inasmuch as, big amount would not have been remained in the current account of the Corporation with the bank. It was also noted that the petitioner alongwith another accused officer though admitted not only that the work assigned to them by the Corporation was not done on time, but agitated that the work could not be completed on time because of shortage of staff of the Corporation. Whereas, the pending work had been completed by the same staff within three days after the incident of misappropriation came into light. Whereas, the pending work had been completed by the same staff within three days after the incident of misappropriation came into light. Once this is so, the same work could have been completed by the subordinates staff by taking more time instated of three days which would have arrested such occurrence. Such default on the part of the petitioner is recorded by the Inquiry Officer while holding the petitioner as guilty. 6. As rightly noted by the learned Single Judge, all these findings of fact cannot be examined within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. On the procedural aspect to show flaw in the decision making process, only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Inquiry Officer has failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule-9(17) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. In this regard, the opinion drawn by the learned Single Judge in paragraph-11 of the judgment is sought to be assailed on the ground that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the mandatory nature of the provision under Rule-9(17) and that the failure on the part of the Inquiry Officer has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, affecting the merit of the inquiry. These submissions are sought to be made on the premise that Rule-9(17) being a mandatory provision, the Inquiry Officer was required to explain every circumstance to the delinquent- Government Servant appearing in the evidence against him, before proceeding to close the matter for preparation of the inquiry report. 8. We find inherent fallacy in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, from the bare reading of the Rule- 9(17), which is couched in the language:- “Rule-9(17): The Inquiry Authority may, after the government servant closes his case, and shall if the government servant has not examined himself, generally, question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him." ‘A careful reading of the Rule-9(17) indicates that this Rule contemplates two circumstances; namely, where a Government Servant has closed his case and further, if the Government Servant has not been examined himself. In so far as the circumstance where a Government Servant has closed his case, the word “may” has been used in the first line, whereas, the use of word “shall” is with respect to a matter, where a Government Servant has not examined himself. The use of word “generally” in the next sentence further explains that the provision is directory and not mandatory. 9. Further, the learned Single Judge while taking note of the explanation given by the respondent in the affidavit-in-reply at Page-’69’, has noted that the Inquiry Officer has recorded that after examination of the witnesses and before submitting the report, he had specifically asked the petitioner whether the petitioner wanted to make any further submission. In our considered opinion, that was sufficient compliance of the Rule of procedure contained in Rule-9(17). Moreover, the present is a case where full opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner. He had examined himself before the Inquiry Officer and the petitioner had also been cross-examined. 10. In view of the above, noticing the findings returned by the learned Single Judge in the Paragraphs-11 and 11.1 of the judgment, we do not find any reason to attach any illegality or infirmity to the Inquiry Report dated 15.11.2010, which even otherwise, was not subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge on any of the grounds available to assail the Inquiry Report. 11. No prejudice said to be caused to the petitioner could have been demonstrated before us on the plea of violation of Rule-9(17) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. For the aforesaid, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the inquiry report and the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to accept the inquiry report so as to inflict penalty upon the petitioner, cannot be substantiated and hence, are turned down. 12. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that an Officer senior to the petitioner, who was also found guilty of dereliction of the duty has been given a lesser punishment. Suffice it to say that the scope of judicial review by this Court to interfere in the quantum of punishment is very very limited and is confined to the decision making process. Only in an exceptional case, the court can sustain the challenge on quantum. 13. Suffice it to say that the scope of judicial review by this Court to interfere in the quantum of punishment is very very limited and is confined to the decision making process. Only in an exceptional case, the court can sustain the challenge on quantum. 13. Further the petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager (Accounts/Audits) and subordinate to him namely, Mr. J.S. Bhavsar, who has been found to be equally responsible for the misappropriation of money, though in a separate inquiry, and has been imposed the penalty of reversion to a lower post by order dated 11.04.2011, as is clear from the statement made in the writ-petition itself. The contention that since the petitioner has not been found guilty of any misconduct and only for lack of supervision, the major penalty of reversion could not have been inflicted upon him, cannot be examined within the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The disciplinary inquiry, which proceeds on principle of preponderance of probability, has been culminated in finding the petitioner being guilty for not supervising the accounts on day-to-day basis and keeping the work pending, which has resulted in misappropriation of money of the Corporation. 14. For the aforesaid, as the petitioner has been found directly responsible for misappropriation of Corporation’s money by his subordinates, by not keeping a check on them, we cannot attach any illegality to the decision of the disciplinary authority in inflicting punishment of reversion upon the petitioner, on the premise that a senior officer to the petitioner has been awarded lesser punishment. 15. With the above, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Appeal stands dismissed, accordingly. No order as to cost. All pending applications, if any, would not survive and shall stand disposed of accordingly.