JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondent – CCL. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order of punishment as contained in Memo bearing Ref. No.:GM(D)/PD/19-20/788 dated 24.06.2019 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service after a proper departmental proceeding. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the enquiry report is in favour of the petitioner but the Disciplinary Authority differed with the same. It is his contention that the reasons for differing has not been provided to the petitioner and without providing the reasons, the respondents could not have punished the petitioner. He further submits that he has obtained employment as the son-in-law of Shadul Ram, who has obtained VRS under the Scheme floated by the Central Coalfields Limited. He further submits that the principle of natural justice was not followed, as no proper time was granted to the petitioner to give a reply to the second show cause notice. On this ground, he prays to set aside the order of punishment. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – CCL, submits that this writ petition cannot be entertained as the petitioner is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. As per him, the petitioner should raise an industrial dispute. The petitioner has directly approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not maintainable. He refers to the judgment reported in (2011) 2 SCC 585 (para-14). He further submits that even if this Court entertains this writ petition, the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while deciding a writ petition involving punishment in a departmental proceeding is very limited. The procedure has been followed and thereafter the order of punishment has been passed. He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is of obtaining employment by fraudulent means. If an appointment is obtained by fraudulent means, it goes to the root of the case and his appointment is void ab initio. 5. The respondents have raised a ground of alternative remedy. 6. Since I have heard the parties at length and this writ petition was filed in the year 2020 and is pending here, I am inclined to hear this writ petition in the interest of justice. 7. 5. The respondents have raised a ground of alternative remedy. 6. Since I have heard the parties at length and this writ petition was filed in the year 2020 and is pending here, I am inclined to hear this writ petition in the interest of justice. 7. After hearing the parties, I find that it is an admitted case that the petitioner was appointed in the Central Coalfields Limited after his father-in-law had obtained VRS. His father-in-law is Shadul Ram. It was later on detected that the petitioner has obtained employment by fraud as Shadul Ram, was not the father of his wife. 8. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and a departmental proceeding was initiated. In the departmental proceeding, the witnesses were examined including the wife of this petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report. The report has been brought on record as Annexure-C to the Counter Affidavit. 9. The enquiry report though is a bit vague but I find that from the enquiry report, a fact which transpires that Sunita Singh is the wife of this petitioner and as per the PAN Card of Sunita Singh, the father’s name of Sunita Singh is Tap Narayan Singh. Thus, the Enquiry Officer came to a finding that the father’s name of the wife of this petitioner differs. 10. Once the enquiry report was submitted, the Disciplinary Authority differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and served a second show cause notice dated 14.06.2019 (Annexure-D to the counter affidavit), to the petitioner. In the second show cause notice, it has been categorically mentioned that the Disciplinary Authority is differing with the report of Enquiry Officer. The copy of the enquiry report and the dissent note was sent along with the second show cause notice to the petitioner. Though, the dissent note is not on record but the ground on which the dissent was made has been reproduced in the reasoned order which disposed the Departmental Appeal. Para-6 is the dissent on which the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the enquiry report. The grounds are as follows:- 6) “The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the Enquiry Report and issued following Dissent Note: a. Sri. Harendra Kumar was appointed on 11.01.180 as a “Son-in-Law” of Late Shadul Ram, Ex-PRW, Dhori Colliery under VR Scheme (by virtue of his own admission). b. That name of wife of Sri. The grounds are as follows:- 6) “The Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the Enquiry Report and issued following Dissent Note: a. Sri. Harendra Kumar was appointed on 11.01.180 as a “Son-in-Law” of Late Shadul Ram, Ex-PRW, Dhori Colliery under VR Scheme (by virtue of his own admission). b. That name of wife of Sri. Harendra Kumar is Mrs.Sunita Singh as per ME-7C c. That Sri. Harendra Kumar had only on wife namely Smt. Sunita Singh d. That as per PAN No. of Smt. Sunita Singh adduced as ME during the enquiry her father name is Sri. Tap Narayan Singh (ME-8) e. That as per report of Sr. Nirdhan Bhardwaj, Surpunch, Gram Panchayat, Hira J.P. Saranggadh, Dist: Raygarh (Chhatisgarh) adduced during enquiry as ME Sri. Shadul Ram, S/o- Sri. Mahesh Ram, Village Hiri, Sarangadh has only one daughter namely Smt. Budharin who has been married at Orissal Badhagadh (ME-9).” 11. From the second show cause notice, I find that there is a reference of this dissent note and it has been specifically mentioned that this dissent note and the enquiry report are enclosed with the second show cause notice and has been sent to this petitioner. Nowhere in the writ petition, the petitioner has denied the fact that the dissent note was not served upon the petitioner. Though, learned counsel representing the petitioner orally argues that the petitioner has not received the dissent note, yet from the petition, I find that no such statement has been made in the writ petition. In absence of such statement in the writ petition and also in view of the positive averment in the second show cause notice that this dissent note is a part of the second show cause notice, it is not proper to hold that the petitioner was not served with the dissent note along with the second show cause notice. 12. It is well settled that a Disciplinary Authority can differ with the finding of the Enquiry Officer but the reasons have to be communicated to the delinquent employee. In this case, the reasons have been communicated. The reasons have been reproduced hereinabove. From the reasonings therein, I find that the petitioner’s wife is Sunita Singh and in the PAN Card, the father’s name of Sunita Singh has been mentioned as Tap Narayan Singh. In this case, the reasons have been communicated. The reasons have been reproduced hereinabove. From the reasonings therein, I find that the petitioner’s wife is Sunita Singh and in the PAN Card, the father’s name of Sunita Singh has been mentioned as Tap Narayan Singh. Further, in para-6 (e) of the dissent note, it has been mentioned that the witness who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Hira, had deposed that Shadul Ram had only one daughter whose name is Smt. Budharin and she has been married at Orissa, Badhagadh. These facts have been taken note of by the Disciplinary Authority while differing with the enquiry report. 13. The petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the second show cause notice but he prayed for time and ultimately did not file the reply. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter found the petitioner guilty of the charge of obtaining employment by impersonation and dismissed him from service. 14. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in judicial review, scope of interference by this Court in the departmental proceeding is very limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of “ Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others versus Rajendra Kumar Dubey ” reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 954 at paragraph 37 thereof has held that it is well settled that High Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority and re-appreciate the evidence, which was led before the enquiry officer. By referring to judgment in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh versus S. Sree Rama Rao [1963 AIR SC 1723] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is not the function of the High Court to review the findings and arrive at a different finding. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well settled that the High Court can interfere where the departmental authority has acted against the principles of natural justice or where the findings are based on no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules provided. Further, if the punishment imposed is excessive, the Court can also interfere. In a departmental proceeding, scope is very limited and it is well settled that the High Court can interfere where the departmental authority has acted against the principles of natural justice or where the findings are based on no evidence or in violation of the statutory rules provided. Further, if the punishment imposed is excessive, the Court can also interfere. It has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:- (i) re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in the case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based; (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience. 15. Considering the aforesaid judgment and the facts and the law that this Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority, I find that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in conducting the departmental proceeding. 16. The impugned order as contained in Memo bearing Ref. No.:GM(D)/PD/19-20/788 dated 24.06.2019 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and the Appellate Order as contained in Memo bearing Ref No.CCL/P&IR/Estt./2019-20/3712 dated 27.12.2019 (Annexure-12), cannot be interfered with. I find no merit in this writ petition. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.