ORDER 4.1.2011 — None appears for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Das, the learned counsel for the Department is present. Perused the records. The petitioner while working as HC/GD in CISF Unit NALCO, Angul faced a departmental proceeding on charge of 128 days overstay and was found guilty of the charge by the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority accepting the enquiry report imposed the punishment of reduction in pay to the minimum stage, i.e., from Rs.4,050/- to Rs.3,200/- in the Time Scale of Pay of Head Constable for a period of three years with immediate effect and it was also directed by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner will earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of the period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The said order of punishment was challenged in appeal and the appeal having been dismissed in Annexure-7, this writ application has been filed challenging the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order of rejection passed by the appellate authority. From the charge memo it appears that the petitioner had earlier suffered one major and ten minor punishments in eleven departmental proceedings. In the present proceeding the charge is that he unauthorisedly overstayed for 128 days in joining at CISF Unit, NALCO at Angul. As it appears, the petitioner was transferred from CISF Unit, BCCL Dhanbad on 6.4.2000 to CISF Unit, NALCO at Angul and was allowed to avail joining time as per rules. Though he was supposed to report for duty at CISF Unit, NALCO on 17.4.2000 after availing 10 days authorized joining time as per rules, he reported for duty only on 23.8.2000, i.e., 128 days after the date due for joining. In course of the proceeding, two witnesses examined on behalf of the Department. One of the witnesses, namely, A. Sarkar stated that though the petitioner was supposed to join on or before 17.4.2000, he reported for duty only on 24.8.2000 after 128 days of over stay. In this regard, the petitioner had not sent any information. This witness was not cross-examined by the petitioner. The said witness examined on behalf of the Department stated about all the previous proceedings and the punishment imposed therein. The petitioner did not examine any witness from his side but he was himself examined in course of the proceeding. In this regard, the petitioner had not sent any information. This witness was not cross-examined by the petitioner. The said witness examined on behalf of the Department stated about all the previous proceedings and the punishment imposed therein. The petitioner did not examine any witness from his side but he was himself examined in course of the proceeding. His case before the Enquiry Officer was that on 17.4.2000 he came to Cuttack along with his belongings to board a Bus for Angul but his brief case was stolen which contained cash, Last Pay Certificate, Movement order, Kit bag and I.D. Card apart from other personal belongings. Because of such theft of the brief case, he lost his balance but boarded the bus. After travelling some distance he was advised by a co-passenger to report the incident of theft in the concerned Police Station. Thereafter he got down from the bus, came back to Cuttack and reported the matter at the Police Station which was entered in the Station Diary at about 11.30 hours. Thereafter he could not remember anything for about three and half months and was being treated by one Dr. Bijay Kumar Patnaik at Cuttack. He was found to be suffering from anxiety depression and had been advised rest. Only after he was certified to be fit, he reported for duty at Angul. Though such stand was taken by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, neither a copy of the Station Diary entry nor the records relating to his treatment by Dr. Patnaik were produced before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, found the petitioner guilty of the charge on the basis of the evidence of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the Department and the records produced by them. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment as stated earlier. The appellate authority also considering the past conduct of the petitioner declined to interfere with the order of punishment. Law is well settled that this Court in a writ petition cannot sit in appeal and reassess the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and come to a different conclusion. No ground has been made out in the writ petition to the effect that it is a case of no evidence. Law is well settled that this Court in a writ petition cannot sit in appeal and reassess the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and come to a different conclusion. No ground has been made out in the writ petition to the effect that it is a case of no evidence. The only ground taken in the writ petition is that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on extraneous materials. On perusal of the entire report, we do not find any material taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer which can be said to be extraneous. The records produced by the witnesses examined on behalf of the Department regarding unauthorized over stay were only looked into by Enquiry Officer and the said fact is also not disputed by the petitioner. It was the duty of the petitioner to prove the defence he had taken before the Enquiry Officer and he has miserably failed to do so by not producing a single paper in support of the plea taken. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment which according to us is just and proper considering the past conduct of the petitioner. Undisputedly the petitioner has visited one major and ten minor punishments in eleven departmental proceedings earlier and in almost all the departmental proceedings the charge is the same as that of this case. The appellate authority has also taken the same into consideration and rejected the appeal. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal. The writ application being devoid of merit is dismissed. Application dismissed.