Judgment G.C. Bharuka, J. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 24.51984 and 25.5.1984 (Annexures 1 and 2) by which the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from his service as a major punishment as also the order dated 6.9.1985 (Annexure 3) by which the appellate authority has confirmed the aforesaid orders. 2. The facts of this case in short are that in the year 1983, the petitioner was posted as Officer Incharge of Guthani P.S. in the district of Siwan. At that time, a complaint was made by one Kurban Sain before the Superintendent of Police alleging therein that one Suresh Kumar Singh, A.S.I., alongwith a constable had arrested the complainant on the basis of a forged warrant and he was released only after Rs.350/- was paid by the wife of the complainant Kurban Sain to the A.S.I. Pursuant to this complaint the Superintendent of Police conducted an enquiry and thereupon it revealed that the petitioner was also actively involved in the said misdeeds. 3. Thereafter, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner which was membered as 68/1983. The said enquiry was conducted by Circle Inspector of Police, Mairwa, who examined the witnesses in presence of the petitioner and forwarded his enquiry report to the D.I.G., Saran at Chapra who is the punishing authority. The Enquiring Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Punishing Authority while considering the matter independent of the report of the Conducting Officer came to his own independent finding by appraisal of the evidence collected through enquiry and found the petitioner guilty of the charge. This order is Annexure 1 to the writ application. Orders were passed for compulsory retirement of the petitioner as a major punishment (Annexure 2). Against these orders the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police. Bihar, Patna, who on appreciation of the grounds taken in the memorandum as well as materials available on the record held that, according to him, the charges were so serious that the punishment as awarded was appropriate. He did not find any reason for interfering with the order awarding punishment. 4. Mr. Bihar, Patna, who on appreciation of the grounds taken in the memorandum as well as materials available on the record held that, according to him, the charges were so serious that the punishment as awarded was appropriate. He did not find any reason for interfering with the order awarding punishment. 4. Mr. Mukhopadhaya appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on three grounds (i) the punishing authority has erred in taking the view that the prosecution witnesses have supported the charge against the petitioner and therefore, his findings are passed on non-est grounds, (ii) the Enquiring Officer bas based his report on extraneous matters and (iii) in any view of the matter the quantum of punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. So far as the first ground as challenged is concerned it is suffice to state that essentially it is a question of fact as to whether there were evidence against the petitioner in support of the charges levelled against him. This ground was not taken before the appellate authority as is evident from the memorandum, which is Annexure 5 to the writ application. In any view of the matter it bas been admitted Kurban Sain, who was main victim of the conspiracy has specifically deposed against the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence to make the Impugned orders null and void. So far as the second ground is concerned, even if it is admitted that the Enquiring Officer has based his conclusions on some extraneous or irrelevant materials still it cannot be held to be of any consequence. This report by itself is not a ground for awarding punishment to the petitioner. The Punishing Authority has awarded the punishment by taking into account the material evidence as recorded during the enquiry and a perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 1 clearly shows that the punishing authority bas not based its findings on irrelevant materials. As such, any irregularity as complained of cannot in any way affect the validity of the orders impugned. As such, any irregularity as complained of cannot in any way affect the validity of the orders impugned. This ground also loses its force because of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Swarn Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 1976 S.C. 233 (Paragraph 18) where it has been said that there is authority for the proposition that, where the orders of a domestic tribunal makes reference to several grounds, some relevant and existent, and others irrelevant and non-existent, the order will be sustained if the Court is satisfied that the authority would have passed the order on the basis of the relevant and existing grounds, and the exclusion of irrelevant or non• existing grounds could not have affected the ultimate decision." 5. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned under the facts and the circumstances of the case, I do not feel like interfering with the same. For these reasons this writ application is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.