ORDER : CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. Writ petitioner challenges disciplinary authority order, dated 31.12.2001, passed by the 2 nd respondent as confirmed by the appellate authority, vide order, dated 07.06.2002, to the extent of imposing punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage and recovery of financial loss to the extent of Rs.34,334.75ps. purported to be in terms of Regulation 39(1)(d) and Regulation 39(1)(c) respectively of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, to be arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice, besides being unconstitutional. 2. (a) Petitioner was working with respondent Corporation as Assistant Administrative Officer at one of its branches at Gurazala, Guntur District. As part of duties, he was assigned with the duty of accompanying officer for the purpose of ensuring the cash collected with the branch to be deposited with its bank. On 13.4.1997, the collection of premiums with the branch were stated to have been entered in daily cash book and next day the amount was supposed to be deposited with its banker. The job of collecting premiums by ay of cash though was not that of the petitioner and rests on the senior cashier, in order to ensure that the amounts so collected are safely and appropriately deposed with the bank, the petitioner was entrusted with the assignment of accompanying the cash. In the process, it was ultimately found that there was shortage of cash than that recorded in daily cash register, for which both criminal case as well as disciplinary proceedings came to be instituted. (b) The criminal case was foisted against the petitioner and also the peon, who was entrusted with carrying of cash to the bank, on the allegations of misappropriation. Eventually, the criminal trial ended in acquittal insofar as petitioner was concerned, however, the other accused got convicted. The petitioner was issued charge memo, dated 16.08.1997, alleging that he was responsible and negligent in movement of the cash, which was supposed to be deposited with the bank. Petitioner submitted explanation, dated 09.09.1997, refuting the charges. The enquiry officer after conducting thorough enquiry, submitted report, dated 25.02.1999, finding that though there was a lapse on the part of petitioner as accompanying officer, it was on account of his mis-judgment, therefore, the charge of negligence was not made out and proved beyond doubt. Petitioner submitted explanation, dated 09.09.1997, refuting the charges. The enquiry officer after conducting thorough enquiry, submitted report, dated 25.02.1999, finding that though there was a lapse on the part of petitioner as accompanying officer, it was on account of his mis-judgment, therefore, the charge of negligence was not made out and proved beyond doubt. (c) However, the disciplinary authority dis-agreeing with the opinion expressed by the enquiry officer, proceeded with the disciplinary action by issuing show-cause notice, dated 12.11.2001 enclosing the copy of enquiry report and called upon to submit explanation. The show-cause notice proposed to impose penalty of reduction in basic pay by three stages and recovery of financial loss to the extent of Rs.34,334.75ps., being half of the loss incurred by the Corporation. Petitioner submitted detailed explanation, dated 19.12.2001. After considering the evidence available on record and also the explanation of the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent disciplinary authority has passed order, dated 31.12.2001, imposing penalty of reduction in basic pay by three stages and also ordering recovery of the amount as stated above. Petitioner has challenged the said order before the 1 st respondent – appellate authority. By order, dated 07.06.2002, the appellate authority has modified the punishment to that of reduction in basic pay by one stage while retaining the recovery of the amount. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. The respondent Corporation has filed detailed counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. 4. Heard Ms.Shaik Neha Hassan, learned counsel, representing Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Singam Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the order of the disciplinary authority does not specifically render any finding as such to drive home that the petitioner was negligent in discharging his duty as accompanying officer, in the absence of reasons and findings, the order is clearly unsustainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the order of the disciplinary authority does not specifically render any finding as such to drive home that the petitioner was negligent in discharging his duty as accompanying officer, in the absence of reasons and findings, the order is clearly unsustainable. She also contended that the role and responsibility of accompanying officer would be merely to ensure that the amount which is in box/suit case, is safely delivered and deposited with the bank, as no specific role is attributed to the petitioner in such process and pointing out anything against him for shortage of the amount, particularly, having regard to the findings rendered by the criminal court that the misappropriation was attributable to the other accused, the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority erred in not considering such crucial part of evidence in deciding the disciplinary proceedings which is, therefore, clearly perverse. In support of her submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 . 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation supported the orders of disciplinary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority. He contended that the enquiry officer has clearly come to conclusion that there was negligence on the part of petitioner, however, he opined that such negligence since not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the disciplinary proceedings may not be continued. The said opinion, ipso facto, would not preclude the disciplinary authority in taking forward the disciplinary proceedings having regard to the gravity of the charge. He further contended that inasmuch as the petitioner has signed the daily cash book (DCB), which confirms that the amount that was to be deposited with the bank, it was his responsibility to ensure the same amount is deposited with the bank and as the amount fell shortage of the entry, as shown in DCB, clearly petitioner was negligent in discharging his duty, therefore, rightly, the disciplinary authority and as well as the appellate authority have imposed punishment of penalty as specified therein. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsels. 8. The petitioner did not dispute the fact of signing daily cash book which suggested collection of premium amount by the branch on 13.02.1997. 7. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of both the learned counsels. 8. The petitioner did not dispute the fact of signing daily cash book which suggested collection of premium amount by the branch on 13.02.1997. The amount as mentioned in DCB was supposed to be deposited in the bank on next day i.e. 14.02.1997. It is not in dispute that the next day when the amount was taken to bank, there was shortage of Rs.68,669.50 ps. The Corporation having felt that the amount that was falling short was on account of misappropriation, it has initiated two sets of proceedings, one by instituting a criminal complaint against the writ petitioner and the peon, who handled the cash, and the other being disciplinary proceedings. Insofar as criminal proceedings were concerned, the competent court has acquitted the petitioner holding that he was not found to be involved in misappropriation of cash, and the other accused came to be convicted. Insofar as the disciplinary proceedings were concerned, the enquiry officer has thoroughly gone into the aspect of negligence attributable to the petitioner, and expressed opinion that the charge of gross negligence could not have been said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The disciplinary authority, however, taking view that in disciplinary proceedings, question of proving the charge on the touch stone of beyond reasonable doubt does not arise and rather it was required to be only seen on preponderance of probabilities, proceeded with the disciplinary action. The disciplinary authority concurring with the opinion expressed by the enquiry officer, who also has come to the conclusion that indeed there was negligence on the part of petitioner, ultimately, also considering the fact that petitioner has signed the DCB, a specific finding has been recorded that petitioner’s duties and responsibilities would end only upon tendering of the cash in tact with the bank, which was clearly lacking in the present case. On appreciation of evidence on record, ultimately, the disciplinary authority for reasons recorded, has come to conclusion that the charge against petitioner came to be proved for which punishment of reduction in basic pay by three stages was ordered, besides ordering recovery of 50% of the financial loss occurred to the Corporation. 10. On appreciation of evidence on record, ultimately, the disciplinary authority for reasons recorded, has come to conclusion that the charge against petitioner came to be proved for which punishment of reduction in basic pay by three stages was ordered, besides ordering recovery of 50% of the financial loss occurred to the Corporation. 10. The appellate authority equally has gone into the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner and has come to conclusion that the reasoning and as well as conclusion drawn by the disciplinary authority was sound enough and really do not warrant any interference, however, taking a lenient view, the punishment has been modified to the extent of reduction in basic pay by one stage, while retaining the recovery of financial loss, so ordered. 11. I have gone through both the orders of disciplinary authority and as well as the appellate authority and of the opinion that both the orders specifically deal with the evidence on record and rendered definitive findings with respect to the role played by the petitioner. As accompanying officer, since he did sign the DCB, which clearly admits the position that the amount that was collected on 13.02.1997, varied with the amount that was deposited on the next day, clearly petitioner’s negligence had a prominent role in the process of it being misappropriated by the peon. 12. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajai Kumar Srivastava , in fact, paras.26 to 28 of the said judgment, really go against the petitioner for the reason that both the orders of disciplinary authority and as well as appellate authority did render specific reasons and findings in coming to the conclusion as to why punishment was being imposed and that it was not a case of absolutely no evidence at all. It is now very well settled in cases of disciplinary proceedings, the Courts, while exercising Certiorari Jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, would only step in to see as to whether the order passed by the disciplinary authority was within jurisdiction, the procedure in which the enquiry was conducted has been in accordance with the statutory rules, does not violate principles of natural justice and that the findings and decisions arrived at by the disciplinary authority rests on possible reasons, unless it is shown that the decision was arrived at sans any reasons, no interference is called for. Further, the Court would not try to substitute its views by reappreciating the evidence and material on record transposing it as an appellate authority. The case on hand clearly does not fall under any of the above parameters, as observed above. The orders by respective authorities did provide for reasons in coming to the decision of imposing penalty. 13. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere with the orders of disciplinary authorities and the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.