A.M. DHAVALE, J.

1. The petitioner assails the order of District Judge, Osmanabad dt. 23.04.2001, whereby he was held guilty in Departmental Inquiry and his one increment was permanently stopped. The order was confirmed in Departmental Appeal before this Court.

2. Undisputedly, Reg. Civil Appeal No. 133 of 1983 against the judgment and decree in Spl. Civil Suit No. 20 of 1977 came to be dismissed in-default on 21.04.1995 but by order dt. 01.07.1998 in Misc. Application No. 49 of 1995, the same was restored to the file. That time, the petitioner was Jr. Clerk in the District Court and his co-delinquent Mr. Gaikwad was senior clerk. The petitioner was charged with the accusation that it was his duty to call the record and proceedings as per the order dt. 09.07.1998 but he failed to do so and it resulted into destruction of 'C' file of Spl. Civil Suit No. 20 of 1977 on 07.10.1998. After regular inquiry, the Inquiry Officer exonerated both the delinquents but the Disciplinary Authority took a contrary view and held both the delinquents guilty.

3. [A] Shri. Kshitij Surve h/f Shri. Hemant Surve, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per para 544(2) of Civil Manual, the Record Office should have destroyed the 'C' file after 12 years from the disposal of appeal. The appeal was disposed of initially on 21.04.1995 but it was restored. Merely because the record and proceedings was not called, the Record Office was not justified in destruction of 'C' file before due date. Therefore, the alleged disputed failure of the petitioner to call the record & proceedings cannot be said to be the cause for destruction of 'C' file on 07.10.1998.

[b] Secondly, he submitted that there was no order for calling the record and proceedings. The order dt. 09.07.1998 showing restoration of appeal and issuing notices was in black ink with signature of Presiding Office in black ink. Subsequently, the words 'Call R&P' of lower court are interpolated in blue ink in different font and in different handwriting. The Disciplinary Authority ignored this material defect and did not permit the petitioner to examine the document through Handwriting expert.

[c] He also submitted that, the Disciplinary Authority did not comply with the provisions of Rule 9(2) and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

4. Per contra, Mr K. B. Jadhavar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 3 and Mr C. K. Shinde, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 supported the impugned order. They claimed that, the Presiding Officer was examined and he has stated that, there was no interpolation in the order. There was corresponding Roznama showing the direction to call R&P. The learned District Judge, Osmanabad committed no mistake. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. In the writ jurisdiction, this court cannot sit over as an appellate authority and cannot enter into correctness of the factual aspects.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and carefully considered the arguments canvassed.

6. No doubt, in the writ jurisdiction, the scope of this court is limited and this court cannot act like an appellate authority. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shashikant Patil reported in, AIR 2000 SC 22, the scope is explained in following words.

"Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in