JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel (APDCL), appearing for the respondents. 2. The challenge in the present proceedings is to an order dated 06.11.2007, issued by the Chairman, ASEB, inflicting a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 03 (three) years upon the petitioner, on conclusion of Departmental proceeding instituted against him. The petitioner has also assailed an order dated 31.08.2015, by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and thereby affirming the penalty imposed upon him. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition is noticed as under; The petitioner while working as a Superintending Engineer (Civil) attached to the Project Management Unit (PMU) of the Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited (AEGCL), came to be placed under suspension vide issuance of an order dated 26.02.2007, pending drawal of Departmental proceedings against him. Subsequently a Departmental proceedings came to be instituted against the petitioner vide issuance of a charge-sheet dated 20.04.2007. 02 (two) Articles of Charge came to be framed, therein, against the petitioner. The petitioner on receipt of the said charge-sheet proceeded vide a representation dated 23.04.2007, to request his Disciplinary Authority to furnish to him copies of the documents as listed out, therein. It is projected in the writ petition that the petitioner was permitted to inspect the relevant documents and the petitioner thereafter, has submitted his written statements in the matter on 07.05.2004. After submission of the written statement in the matter by the petitioner, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and the petitioner was permitted to resume his duties against the post identified for the purpose. The written statements submitted by the petitioner not being found to be satisfactory, an enquiry was directed to be held in the matter. The petitioner accordingly was vide order dated 05.06.2007, directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer as appointed. The enquiry accordingly commenced. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, submitted his enquiry report on 16.08.2007, and the same was forwarded to the petitioner by his Disciplinary Authority vide communication dated 27.08.2007, requiring the petitioner to submit his representation, thereon. The petitioner accordingly was vide order dated 05.06.2007, directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer as appointed. The enquiry accordingly commenced. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, submitted his enquiry report on 16.08.2007, and the same was forwarded to the petitioner by his Disciplinary Authority vide communication dated 27.08.2007, requiring the petitioner to submit his representation, thereon. In the said communication dated 27.08.2007, the penalty of compulsory retirement was proposed to be inflicted upon the petitioner, herein. On a request made by the petitioner he was further furnished with xerox copies of the documents as desired by him. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted his representation against the enquiry report on 14.09.2006. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner on consideration of the enquiry report as well as the materials coming on record in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representations against the enquiry report, proceeded vide order dated 06.11.2007, to impose upon the petitioner a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay of Rs.14,650/- per month from Rs.16,000/- per monthfor a period of 03 (three) years. The period of suspension undergone by the petitioner was regularized and the petitioner was held to receive no other benefit than the subsistence allowance as drawn by him. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal in the matter before the Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing upon him a penalty. The said appeal was considered by the Board and vide communication dated 13.03.2008, the petitioner was intimated that the Board after careful examination of the appeal, had rejected the same. Being aggrieved the petitioner assailed the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority before this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.2729/2008. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2015, after noticing issues arising, therein, on having found that the order passed by the Appellate Authority to be cryptic, proceeded to dispose of the writ petition by interfering with the order passed by the Appellate Authority and by remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner after providing to him an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner in the meanwhile having suffered a stroke was not in a position to appear personally before the Board and accordingly submitted through his wife a written submission along with relevant documents, in support of the contentions made in the Appeal. The Appellate Authority thereafter, on consideration of the appeal as well as the written submissions preferred by the petitioner in the matter, proceeded vide order dated 31.08.2015, to reject the said appeal holding that no reasonable ground was highlighted for interfering with the order of penalty dated 06.11.2007, passed by the Departmental Authority and accordingly, the appeal came to be rejected. Being aggrieved the petitioner had instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts, noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the charges leveled against the petitioner was not established during the enquiry. It is projected that the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report has categorically held that there was no direct evidence to show that the petitioner had carried out unauthorized manipulation in the bid document as alleged against him or had it got done by some one else. Mr. Y. S. Mannan, submits that the Enquiry Officer only by considering the broad probability and the circumstances involved had concluded that the petitioner may have had a hand in such manipulation and accordingly, the charges framed against the petitioner were held to have been established. 5. Mr. Y. S. Mannan, has submitted that the charge leveled against the petitioner was sought to be so established basing on statements made by one Reza Mahmud, a System Analyst of the Company. It was submitted that the petitioner after being served with the charge-sheet had approached the authorities with a prayer to also include Reza Mahmud as a witness in the list of witnesses, however said Reza Mahmud was not made a part of the enquiry against the petitioner by projecting that against said Reza Mahmud also there was a Departmental proceeding instituted basing on the same allegation as leveled against the petitioner, herein. Mr. Mr. Mannan, submits that the said aspect of the matter was appreciated by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report and it was, therein, highlighted that Reza Mahmud would have been an important witness in the proceeding, however, he was not cited as a witness by projecting that he was also facing a Departmental proceeding as a collaborator of the petitioner. Mr. Mannan, submits that the statement made by said Reza Mahmud being considered in the enquiry and he not being produced for cross- examination by the petitioner, such statements made by Reza Mahmud could not have been considered by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry and the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer basing on such statement of said Reza Mahmud had the effect of vitiating the enquiry. 6. In support of his such submissions, Mr. Y. S. Mannan, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 . Mr. Y. S. Mannan, by referring to the order dated 31.08.2015, issued towards rejecting his Appeal, has submitted that the same is cryptic and has not taken into consideration the contentions raised by the appellant in his appeal as well as in his written submissions. It is submitted that the said order is also in violation of the directions passed by this Court in WP(C).No.2729/2008. 7. Per contra Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, submits that the Enquiry Officer had drawn his conclusion in the matter strictly basing on the evidences coming on record. Mr. S. P. Sharma, submits that the fact, the petitioner had access to the bid documents was evident from the depositions of the witness in the enquiry. Mr. S. P. Sharma, projects that the petitioner had handed over a CD containing the bid documents and the same was found to be different from the one which was so approved by the consultants. Mr. S. P. Sharma submits that the non examination of Reza Mahmud, a System Analyst, as a Departmental witness was on the ground that an allegation similar to the one leveled against the petitioner was also leveled against him. Mr. S. P. Sharma submits that the non examination of Reza Mahmud, a System Analyst, as a Departmental witness was on the ground that an allegation similar to the one leveled against the petitioner was also leveled against him. It is submitted that the petitioner in the enquiry had not made any request/application before the Enquiry Officer, requiring him to call Reza Mahmud as witness either of the Department and or of the petitioner, herein. It is submitted that the overwhelming evidences coming on record, charges so framed against the petitioner was found to have been established. Mr. Sharma, further submits that this Court in exercise of his power of judicial review would not be sitting over appeal over the decision of the Departmental authorities including the Disciplinary Authority and the Departmental Appellate Authority. He submits that the judicial review is only limited to the evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. Mr. Sharma, further submits that the Disciplinary Authority vide the order dated 06.11.2007,had considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation against the enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority on consideration of the issue raised by the petitioner with regard to the non examination of said Reza Mahmud had drawn a conclusion to the effect that the petitioner had not made any request to the Enquiry Officer nor to the Disciplinary Authority during the enquiry and accordingly, the said contention was rejected. 8. Mr. S. P. Sharma, has further submitted that the Appellate Authority had considered the matter in details and for the purpose, clarification with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner was also received by him from the Departmental Authority. Upon a due consideration of the materials coming on record, the Board in its meeting held on 29.08.2015, had proceeded to reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner, thereby, upholding the penalty so imposed upon him. Mr. S. P. Sharma, submits that the decision of the Board was communicated to the petitioner vide order dated 31.08.2015. He submits that same, in view of the fact that there is no error with regard to the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority,a detailed order was not mandated to be passed in the matter. In the above premises Mr. He submits that same, in view of the fact that there is no error with regard to the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority,a detailed order was not mandated to be passed in the matter. In the above premises Mr. Sharma, submits that the claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. Vide the charge-sheet dated 20.04.2007, the petitioner was charged with 02 (two) charges; Charge No.1- Fraud and Dishonesty in connection with business of the Board/Company; Charge No.2 - Breach of Office (Conduct) Regulation, 1982. With regard to the Charge No.1, the allegation forming the basis of Charge No.1, as can be deduced from the ‘Statements of Allegation’ attached to the charge-sheet dated 20.04.2007, is as follows; “Bid Documents for Revenue Management System under Assam Power Sector Development Project funded by the Asian Development Bank were discussed on 21- 12-2006, in a pre-bid meeting attended by some intending bidders, concerned officers of ASEB and others. On the basis of this discussion, certain amendments/addendum were finalized. The Chief Engineer (Distribution) sent these on 13-1-2007 to the office of the Director(PMU) for obtaining approval of the ADB. During the absence of the Director (PMU), the charged officer who was then working as Dy. General Manager in the Project Monitoring Cell, took away the papers sent by the Chief Engineer (Distribution) and unauthorized, without the knowledge of the Director(PMU) made changes in the addendum/amendments and returned the papers to the Director (PMU), who on good faith sent these to the ADB for approval. On comparison of the bid documents sent to and approved by ADB with the set sent by the Chief Engineer (Distribution) to the Director (PMU) it was found that the approved bid documents differed substantially from the addendum/amendments finalized by the Chief Engineer (Distribution). On enquiry it was found that the charged officer dishonestly and unauthorized made these changes with the malafide intention of securing wrongful gain to some interested bidder. The charge is of fraud and Dishonesty in connection with the business of the Board/Company which is a mis-conduct under Regulation 10(1) of ASEB (General Service) Regulations (For Officers) 1960.” 11. On enquiry it was found that the charged officer dishonestly and unauthorized made these changes with the malafide intention of securing wrongful gain to some interested bidder. The charge is of fraud and Dishonesty in connection with the business of the Board/Company which is a mis-conduct under Regulation 10(1) of ASEB (General Service) Regulations (For Officers) 1960.” 11. With regard to Charge No.2, the allegation can be noted to be as follow; “As detailed under Charge No.1 the charged officer manipulated the bid documents unauthorized and with malafide intention which is an act unbecoming of an officer of the Board/Company, this is a breach of the provisions of ASEB Officers (Conduct) Regulations, 1982, and thus a misconduct under regulation 10(1) ASEB (General Service) Regulations (For Officers) 1960.” 12. On perusal of the allegation forming the basis of Charge No.1, it is seen that after issuance of the tender in the matter, a pre-bid meeting, was held on 21.12.2006; on the basis of the discussions held during the pre-bid meeting, certain amendment/addendums were finalized with regard to the terms of the tender. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer (Distribution)had forwarded the said amendments/addendums received from the consultants, to the Director, Project Management Unit (PMU) for obtaining approval of the Asian Development Bank (ADU). It is further alleged that during the absence of the Director, PMU, the petitioner was then working as a Deputy General Manager, in the Project Monitoring Cell, has taken away the paper sent by the Chief Engineer (Distribution) and without the knowledge of the Director, PMU, had made changes in the amendments/addendums, already made and had returned the paper to the Director, PMU, who on good faith had sent the same to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for its approval. It is alleged that on comparison of thebid document sent to and approved by Asian Development Bank (ADB), with the documents sent by the Chief Engineer Distribution to the Director, PMU, it was found that the bid documents approved by the ADB had differed substantially from the amendments/addendums as finalized by the Chief Engineer (Distribution). 13. During the enquiry the Charge No.1, framed against the petitioner was sought to be established by examining 05 (five) witnesses from the side of the Management. 13. During the enquiry the Charge No.1, framed against the petitioner was sought to be established by examining 05 (five) witnesses from the side of the Management. A perusal of the deposition of the witness as well as their cross- examination by the petitioner it is seen that the bid documents after the same were amended by the Chief Engineer Distribution, was further amended before the same was seen to the ADB authorities for approval, which amendments were held to have been made unauthorizedly. 14. The materials coming on record reveals that such amendments had taken place when the petitioner had cleared access to the said documents. The materials coming on record also reveals on a requirement made by the Chief Engineer (Distribution) for collecting the ADB approved copy of the amended bid documents, the petitioner had handed over the CD of the same. Management Witness No.5, Bolen Das, who was a UDA, working in the Office of the Director, PMU, had submitted that the petitioner had once given him a pen drive for copying the contents on a CD. It was further projected that after the contents of the pen drive was transferred to the hard disk, the same were copied in the CD and the contents of the hard disk were deleted. It is projected that the pen drive and the CD were handed over back to the petitioner. The evidences coming on record reveals that from the contentions raised by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, it was evident that the petitioner hadan hand in the further amendments made to the already amended bid documents by the competent authority. It is basing on the said conclusion that the Enquiry Officer had held that, given the circumstances coming on record, it was a broad probability that the petitioner had a hand in manipulation of the bid documents, unauthorizedly. It is to be noted that allegation leveled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet dated 20.04.2007, applying the principle of preponderance of probability, is found to have been established against him.This Court finds that the materials coming on record during the enquiry had indicated that the petitioner had a hand in the manipulation of the bid documents unauthorizedly and had done the same either by himself and or through some other person. 15. 15. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would now examine the contentions raised by the petitioner that the findings so drawn against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer also being based on the statements made by Reza Mahmud, System Analyst, his non-examination has the effect of vitiating the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer. This Court has perused the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer and appreciated the contentions raised by the petitioner in the matter. It is true that the Enquiry Officer had also relied upon the statement made by said Reza Mahmud before the authorities in writing, however, the said statement was not the sole material basing on which the Enquiry Officer had drawn his conclusions. The statement of Management Witness No.4, Dipak Bhagawati, who was a Senior Manager in the Office of the Chief Engineer (Materials), had brought to the forefront that while he had come to collect the bid documents as approved by the ADB from the Project Management Unit, he had met the petitioner in a room adjacent to the chamber of the Director, PMU, who was not present in his chamber. He had contended that on being asked for a copy of the approved amended bid documents, the petitioner had called the System Analyst, and both of them had entered the chamber of the Director, PMU. It was further contended that after some time the petitioner had come out and had given a copy of CD to the Management Witness No.4. Management Witness No.4 further brought on record that the petitioner had told him that some spelling mistakes had been corrected and a slight modification in the diagram has been made. The said evidence adduced by Management Witness No.4, was not dislodged by the petitioner during his cross-examination of the said witness. The said evidence when considered in the light of the evidences adduced by the other witnesses, this Court is of the considered view that merely on the ground of non examination of said Reza Mahmud, who was also proceeded against on allegation similar to the one leveled against the petitioner, the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer would not mandate any interference. This Court further observes that from the materials coming on record, it is not found that the petitioner had approached the Enquiry Officer with a prayer for calling said Reza Mahmud as a witness in the enquiry either from the Management side or from the side of the petitioner. The petitioner not having raised any such plea before the Enquiry Officer during the Enquiry process, the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to non examination of said Reza Mahmud would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 16. This Court having found the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer to be one based on the materials coming on record and the charge leveled against the petitioner to have been established by applying the principle of preponderance of probability; the same being agreed to by the Disciplinary Authority, the non assignment of detailed reasons by the Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 06.11.2007 and by Appellate Authority in order dated 31.08.2015, would not vitiate the said orders and the said orders would be mandated to be upheld. 17. It is settled position of law that the power of judicial review discharged by constitutional Courts under Article 226 or 32, or when sitting in appeal under Article 136, is distinct from the Appellate power exercised by a Departmental Appellate Authority. It would be gainsaid that judicial review is an evaluation of the decision making process, and not the merits of the decision itself. Judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion. It ought to be used to correct manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome. These principles are succinctly elucidated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 . 18. Accordingly in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the charge leveled against the petitioner is to be held to have been established in the enquiry and accordingly,the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 06.11.2017, is found to be proportionate to the charge that was established against the petitioner. 18. Accordingly in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the charge leveled against the petitioner is to be held to have been established in the enquiry and accordingly,the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner vide the order dated 06.11.2017, is found to be proportionate to the charge that was established against the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 06.11.2007, passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as order dated 31.08.2015, communicating to the petitioner the decision of the Appellate Authority in the considered view of this Court would not mandate any interference. 19. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.