By the Court.—We have heard Shri S.K. Mishra appearing for the petitioner-appellant. Shri J.K. Tiwari, Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner-appellant-a confirmed Amin holding a regular post was dismissed from service three years before he was to retire on the charges, that he had wrongly calculated interest of Rs. 37,823.71 payable towards compensation for acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act to its owner. His appeal was dismissed after this Court issued a writ of mandamus to decide the matter. By this Special Appeal he has challenged the order of learned Single Judge dated 30.9.2008, and the orders of his dismissal dated 28.6.2001, by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur and the appellate order dated 19.8.2002 by the Commissioner, Varanasi under the U.P. Government Servants (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1999.

3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by a short order as follows:

“Hon. Rajiv Sharma, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

Petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition against the order of punishment of termination of service inter alia on the ground that the punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner terminating his services is too harsh, but he could not point out any irregularity in the conduct of the enquiry or any illegality in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Apex Court in the case of Anil Mishra v. Union of India and others, (2008) 7 SCC 732, has held that scope of judicial review in the matter of Departmental proceedings is limited and the Courts could not sit as an appellate authority.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Dated: 30.9.08

Sd/- Rajiv Sharma, J.”

4. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Shri Jagdamba Prasad Singh petitioner-appellant was serving as a confirmed Amin on regular basis in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jaunpur. The land in plot No. 138 area .83 acres of one Tilakdhari Prajapati was acquired by the State Government for 220 KVA, Electricity Sub Station at Village Muradganj, Jaunpur, for which he was paid compensation of Rs. 20,025.61 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Jaunpur on 16.8.1984, vide his award dated 29.5.1985 of Rs. 2,97,507.58. The land owner filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Case No. 68/1985) decided by the Additional District Judge, Jaunpur on 31.5.1988. An appeal filed by State against the order of Additional District Judge, Eighth dated 16.8.84 was dismissed on 18.7.1992. The amount of compensation was substantially enhanced. The land owner filed an Execution Case No. 6/1996 and was paid an amount of Rs. 2, 99, 727.37 as compensation on 22.3.1997.

5. One Shri Ram Dawar Yadav filed an application on 5.2.1998 on the basis of a power of attorney dated 29.5.1997, seeking further payment of Rs. 2, 46, 177.57 for acquisition of the same land. The amount was paid over to him in Execution Case No. 6 of 1996, on behalf of Shri Tilakdhari Prajapati on the basis of power of attorney. When the fraud was detected, a first information report was lodged by Shri Mohan Lal son of Tilakdhari Prajapati against Shri Ram Dawar Yadav; Shri Devi Prasad Upadhyay,SLAO office, Jaunpur; Shri Om Shanker Srivastava, Clerk in the office of SLAO on 8.11.1999 registering Case Crime No. 751 of 1999 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 218, 120B IPC Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur. On the basis of the complaint, a preliminary enquiry was initiated by the District Magistrate and was conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Sub Divisional Magistrate in his report dated 8.4.2000 found the allegations made against Shri Ram Dawar Yadav; Shri Om Shanker and Shri Devi Prasad Upadhyay,SLAO of interpolation of Execution Case No. 5 to 6 of 1996 in which the payment was given all over again to Shri Ra