JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:- i. “For issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside order dated 20.04.2024 vide Memo No. 182 (ANNEXURE-10) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur (Respondent No. 2) whereby the petitioner has been given a punishment of stoppage of two annual increment with non- cumulative effect and further direction has been given to the Circle Officer, Littipara, Pakur to enter the same in the service book of the petitioner. ii. For issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing upon the respondents to release Rs. 28,879/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Nine) to the petitioner for the cost incurred in getting the User Acceptance Test of VVPAT which has been paid by the petitioner from his own pocket but the same has been withheld by the respondents illegally.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was assigned the task of shifting EVMs (BU & CU) from the old warehouse to the new one, for which a total of 28 labors worked on different dates. However, the respondent no. 4 got the work carried out through labors arranged by a middleman. As per the petitioner, the respondent no. 3 (Officer-in- Charge, District Election Branch, Pakur) instructed him to make file notings of vouchers falsely showing 189 labors for ?69,930 in place of 28 labors and later 178 labors for ?65,860. Thereafter on 27.07.2023, the respondent no. 3 asked him to give explanation for not moving the file even after repeated requests and respondent no. 4 lodged an F.I.R. against him. The petitioner gave his reply on 28.07.2023 which was not found satisfactory and hence, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. A charge memo was issued against the petitioner on 08.09.2023, to which the petitioner replied on 30.09.2023. The Enquiry Officer found first charge proved and second charge partially proved against the petitioner and by order dated 20.04.2024, the petitioner was inflicted punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Thus, aggrieved by the order of punishment, this writ petition has been filed. 4. The Enquiry Officer found first charge proved and second charge partially proved against the petitioner and by order dated 20.04.2024, the petitioner was inflicted punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Thus, aggrieved by the order of punishment, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts forth his arguments stating that the punishment order has been passed by the respondent authorities without recording any reason without considering the show cause of the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that the Enquiry Officer has not examined any documents nor there are evidences to support the allegations. 5. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the punishment has been imposed after a proper departmental proceeding and also the petitioner had been provided ample opportunity to place his defense. The learned counsel submits that the contention of the petitioner of being forced to move falsified bills has not been corroborated with any facts or testimony. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records. I find that the departmental proceeding has been conducted fairly in accordance with law following the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given full opportunity to present his defense. It is well settled that High Courts have very limited scope under Article 226 of the Constitution. Thus, it cannot act as an appellate authority and re-evaluate findings of fact or the adequacy of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 has held as under: “23. The scope of examination and interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Constitution’) in a case of the present nature, is no longer res integra. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 , a 3-Judge Bench stated: ‘7. … The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant : it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.’” 7. I find that the petitioner was proceeded departmentally and the petitioner was charged on the following grounds: 1. The petitioner who was on deputation to the District Election Branch, Pakur, repeatedly failed to submit important files on time despite being instructed to do so. He also disregarded the orders of senior officers and engaged in unnecessary arguments. The materials from the EVMs (BU & CU) warehouse located in the Collectorate were shifted to the newly constructed EVM warehouse. He was repeatedly asked to submit the bill/file related to the expenses incurred in carrying out aforesaid work, but he did neither comply with the instructions nor answer the calls. In this regard, a clarification was sought through office memorandum No. 396/Election, dated July 27, 2023. 2. On 27.07.2023, on asking about the file relating to EVMs shifting by Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Election Officer, he locked him in the room. 8. As his reply was unsatisfactory an Enquiry Officer was appointed. In this regard, a clarification was sought through office memorandum No. 396/Election, dated July 27, 2023. 2. On 27.07.2023, on asking about the file relating to EVMs shifting by Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Election Officer, he locked him in the room. 8. As his reply was unsatisfactory an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer found the first charge to be proved and the second charge partially proved. The petitioner was inflicted punishment of stoppage of two annual increment with non-cumulative effect. From the records it is clear that there is no violation of any statutory rules. The punishment is also minor and it cannot be said that the same is disproportionate to the charge which is proved. 9. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.