CWP(T) No. 7865/2008 02.12.2010 Present: Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. for the respondents-State It is not in dispute that petitioner was working as a Kanungo. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for the reason that he had misconducted himself during the discharge of his official duties. Record reveals that charge-sheet dated 21.4.1998 was served upon the delinquent official. Inquiry Officer was appointed and even during the inquiry proceedings full opportunity of hearing/ representation was afforded to the petitioner. Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 19.5.2000. Said report was also supplied to the petitioner. 2. Disciplinary Authority, in my considered view, by taking a lenient view imposed penalty in terms of order dated 5.7.2000. Operative portion of the order reads as under:- “In view of the facts stated above, I fully agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. In fact with the gravity of the charge, the delinquent official deserves stringent punishment like dismissal or removal from service, but in view of his retirement in very near future, by taking a lenient view, I impose upon him the penalty of reduction to initial pay scale of the Kanungo post i.e. Rs.4550/- with immediate effect till the date of his superannuation i.e. 30-06-2001, with further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of this reduction and on the expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.” 3. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which also stands decided by a speaking order dated 30.5.2001. 4. From the record, it could not be pointed out as to how rules of principles of natural justice stand violated by the respondents in the conduct of the inquiry proceedings. Petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing/representation at all times. He was afforded opportunity to lead evidence, cross-examine the official witnesses and effectively represent himself. 5. Scope for interference in this petition is limited. It is settled position of law that Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence unless it is perverse or findings are based on erroneous, appreciation and interpretation of the material on record. In the instant case none exists. Petitioner was found to have carried out demarcation of 16 biswas of land for which he was not competent to do so. He acted in access and beyond his authority, capacity and jurisdiction. Hence no case for interference is made out. It cannot be said that any legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. Consequently, present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. December 02, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.