JUDGEMENT AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is a constable who has been dismissed from service after holding a departmental enquiry and on a finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer. The charges were drawn up against the petitioner which included not only misbehaviour with certain passengers and traders at Naugachhia Railway Station but misbehaviour with woman folk, details thereof would be evident from not only the charges but the narration and details, given both by disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. 2. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner raised certain questions of law relating to procedural infirmity in the departmental proceeding conducted against the petitioner. His first submission was that the delinquent was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced in the enquiry. He was not given copy of the enquiry report to effectively defend himself and only extract of the finding was furnished to him and this lead to miscarriage of justice. 3. Since the counter affidavit did not answer some of these questions in so many words, the Court directed the State counsel to produce the original file relating to disciplinary proceeding to verify the actual state of affairs and the manner in which the departmental proceeding was conducted by the enquiry officer as such. 4. Witnesses have been examined and they have been examined in presence of the petitioner. The copies of their statements were duly handed over to petitioner. There is clear endorsement in those evidences that the petitioner refused to examine any of those witnesses. If that is what emerges from the record then the first objection of the petitioner being prevented from cross- examining and defending himself effectively seems to be misplaced. 5. The other aspect of not being given copy of the enquiry report except the extract of the finding which has been urged is also not correct. The original record which has been produced would show that the petitioner was given copy of the enquiry report and it is also significant to record that the petitioner has filed his show cause as well as appeal in a very detailed manner on all the aspects of the matter. The original record which has been produced would show that the petitioner was given copy of the enquiry report and it is also significant to record that the petitioner has filed his show cause as well as appeal in a very detailed manner on all the aspects of the matter. Even if the submission of counsel is accepted that only the extract of the finding was given, which however was not true, then the fact that the petitioner defended himself on each and every aspect of the findings given is an adequate proof that he has not been prejudiced in any manner in putting up his effective defence. 6. The charges against the petitioner in the opinion of the Court is rather serious, more so when it came down to misbehaviour with woman folk and even an under age daughter of one of the complainants. A constable or an officer working in the police department has a duty to protect the citizens and not use his position to harass the citizens and indulge in behaviour unbecoming of a person working for a disciplined force. 7. The findings are there. The charges have been established and if that is the background under which the order of dismissal has been passed by the disciplinary authority then there is no occasion for this Court to sit in appeal over that decision. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have also applied themselves to the findings and the charges. In the totality of the circumstances it is not one of those cases where the Court should even remotely reconsider the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner on the touchstone of proportionality. It is the conduct of the petitioner which has led to his fate and for which he and he alone can be blamed and not the system. This writ application is dismissed being devoid of any merit. However there will be no order as to cost.