JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order inflicting penalty of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension vide order dated 16.05.2008. However, at one stage, the petitioner approached to this Court by filing CWP-5467/2008 which was dismissed on availability of alternative remedy of review u/R.34 of the CCA Rules,1958 vide order dated 18.03.2009 and review petition preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by passing a detailed speaking order dated 21.04.2011 (Annx.6). 2. The petitioner who was a member of Class-IV at the relevant point of time working as Jamadar at His Excellency the Governor household, Governor House, Jaipur. It will be relevant to take note of the allegations levelled against the petitioner served along with memorandum u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958 dated 26.11.2007 (Annx.1) which is reproduced here-as-under. " vkjksi la[;k&1 vki fnukad 25-10-2007 dks jkf=dkyhu M;wVh esa jktHkou xsLV gkml esa M;wVh ij FksA jkf= 00-03 ,0,e0 ( fnukad 26-10-2007 dks ) ij dUV~ksyj jkT;iky gkm;gksYM }kjk egkefge jk"V~ifr egks;k dh 28-10-2007 ls 29-10-2007 rd t;iqj ;k=k ds lEcU/k esa jktHkou vfrfFkx`g dk fujh{k.k fd;k x;k] fujh{k.k ds oDr vki oh0vkbZ0ih0 d{k uEcj 5 esa cSaM ij lksrs gq;s ,oa Vh0oh0 ns[krs gq;s ik;s x;sA dUV~ksyj }kjk vkils oh0vkbZ0ih0 d{k esa lksus dk dkj.k iwNus ij vki }kjk dksbZ larks"ktud tokc ugha fn;k x;kA dUV~ksyj }kjk vkidks oh0vkbZ0ih0 dejksa esa izos'k ugha djus ds funsZ'k fn;s tkus ds ckotwn vki }kjk oh0vkbZ0ih0 d{k esa izos'k dj oh0vkbZ0ih0 d{k ds cSM ij lksuk ,oa Vh0oh0 ns[kuk funsZ'kksa dh vogsyuk ,oa ?kksj vuq'kklughurk dk /kksrd gSa] ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSaA vkjksi la[;k&2 jktHkou xsLV gkml esa egkefge jkT;iky egksn; ds vfrfFk;ksa ,oa fof'k"B vfrfFk;ksa dk le; & le; ij vkxeu gksrk jgrk gSaA xsLV gkml esa dk;Zjr teknkj dh M~;wVh ftEesnkjhiwoZd gksrh gSA vki viuh M~;wVh ij mifLFkr gksrs gq;s M~;wVh ds le; oh0vkbZ0ih0 d{k esa cSM ij lksuk vkidh ?kksj vuq'kklughurk dks n'kkZrk gSa] ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSaA vkjksi la[;k&3 iwoZ esa Hkh vki }kjk dRrZO; ds izfr ykijokgh o vuq'kklughurk cjrus ds fy, vkidks nf.Mr fd;k tk pqdk gSa ysfdu fQj Hkh vkids vkpj.k esa dksbZ lq/kkj ugha gqvk gSa] ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSaA " 3. However, enquiry was held by the disciplinary authority in which charges were found proved against him and prime allegation was that in the midnight on 25.10.2007 the controller when inspected VIP Room no.5 the petitioner was found lying on the bed and watching Television and apart from it other charges framed against the petitioner were found proved and punished with the penalty of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension vide order dated 16.05.2008 (Annx.3) and the reviewing authority also examined the record of enquiry and the explanation furnished by him but looking to the gravity of the charges found proved against him rejected the review petition vide order dated 21.04.2011. 4. Counsel has tried to convince this Court that charges levelled against the petitioner are all concocted and this indirect method was adopted to oust him from the job but he was unable to place any material and obviously it was not possible for him being such a low paid employee and in such circumstances the finding which has been recorded in holding him guilty is perverse and the order of the reviewing authority also is not based on factual matrix of the matter and deserves to be quashed. 5. This Court is not supposed to take note of what is being urged by counsel for petitioner but would like to take note of the charges levelled against him which after holding regular enquiry provided u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958 found proved against him and taking note of the nature of misconduct his guilt was found proved and punished with the penalty provided u/R.14 of the CCA Rules,1958 and the reviewing authority also examined the material of the disciplinary enquiry while upholding the penalty inflicted. This Court does not find any error being committed in the procedure adopted by the respondent and so also the quantum of punishment being inflicted upon the petitioner which in limited scope of judicial review u/Art.226 of the Constitution which may call for interference. 6. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit accordingly stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******