JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.5.1995 (Annexure 6) passed by respondent No. 3 by which he was dismissed from service as well as the order dated 11.9.1995 (Annexure 8) passed by the appellate authority i.e. respondent No. 2 whereby he has confirmed the order of dismissal passed by respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner was a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as "the C.I.S.F.") in its Unit at Bokaro Steel Plant A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for the charges of conspiracy to commit theft inside the plant on 29.4.1995 for his wrongful gain; gross dereliction and negligence of duty, in that he was found absent from barracks of G Coy, at 0130 hrs. and 0330 hrs. on 30.4.1995; and for grave misconduct and dereliction of duty in that he attempted to commit the theft of undertaking property from Shed No. C-22 of M.P. Stores on 29/30.4.1995. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding. All the charges were found proved by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 19.5.1995 (Annexure 4). On receipt of a copy of the enquiry report, the petitioner made a final representation (Annexure 5) dated 25.5.1995 to respondent No. 3. By the impugned order dated 26.5.1995 (Annexure 6) passed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner was dismissed from service alter considering the entire matter in detail. The appellate authority (respondent No. 2) by order dated 11th September, 1995 (Annexure 8) confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority after considering the relevant aspects. 3. Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the orders of punishment are bad as the copies of the statement of the witnesses and other documents were not supplied to him and that the findings are not based on the evidences. 4. It appears from the order (Annexure 6) that such pleas were taken by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority after scrutiny of the entire matter rejected such pleas of the petitioner by a well reasoned order. He further found that the documents were furnished to the petitioner under proper acknowledgement. 4. It appears from the order (Annexure 6) that such pleas were taken by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority after scrutiny of the entire matter rejected such pleas of the petitioner by a well reasoned order. He further found that the documents were furnished to the petitioner under proper acknowledgement. It was found that the petitioner planned to commit theft in Shed No. C-22 and he was caught red handed by the C.I.S.F. personnel outside the perimeter wall near steel gate in civil dress at about 0130 hrs on 30.4.1995 under suspicious manner and there was no reason for him being there at such odd hours. He was found absent from Barrack of G Coy at 0130 hrs and again at 03030 hrs on the intervening night of 29/20.4.1995 when surprise roll call was conducted by the C.I.S.F. Personnel. It was found that he was involved in committing theft from the stores. 5. The scope of judicial review under writ jurisdiction is very limited. I find no procedural error in the proceeding. The orders of punishment are based on relevant considerations and proper appreciation of the materials on record. The punishment also cannot be said to be harsh in view of the aforesaid charges proved against the petitioner whose duty was to protect the company from theft. The authorities rightly said that petitioner has destroyed the reputation of C.I.S.F. by his shameful act and allowing him to continue in service will adversely affect the discipline and integrity of the force. 6. In the circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.