ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is filed by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 19th June 2013 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 11701 of 2011. 2. In respect of an incident of 1998, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant, the Officer-in-charge, Saksohra Police Station, District – Patna. The charge sheet was issued on 26th May 1999. It was alleged that on the date of the incident, the appellant was in an inebriated condition. While on duty, he caught hold of a young girl named Rinku Devi from the shop of a chemist where she was waiting to buy some medicines in the company of her father. The appellant escorted the said Rinku Devi to the Police Station; illegally confined her in the Police Station for the whole night and released her on the next day after receiving a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from her father. It was also alleged that the appellant did make an attempt to outrage the modesty of the said Rinku Devi, but did not succeed in his attempt on account of the presence of her father, the doctor and some others. After due disciplinary proceeding, the enquiry officer opined that the imputation of charge made against the appellant was proved and that he was guilty of the alleged misconduct. Pursuant to the said report, under order dated 26th December 2002 made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, the appellant was visited with punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. The said order was not carried further and became final. 3. Since the aforesaid order of punishment, pursuant to the bifurcation of the larger State of Bihar in 2000, the appellant was allocated to the State of Jharkhand. 4. It appears that along with the appellant one Arun Kumar Singh, a literate Constable in the Police Station, was also involved. He too was charged for his complicity in the incidence in question. After due departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service. The said order came to be challenged by the said Arun Kumar Singh before this Court in CWJC No. 942 of 2004. The said petition came to be dismissed on 17th January 2008. The Court also enquired about the disciplinary proceeding held against the Officer-in-charge, the present appellant. After due departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service. The said order came to be challenged by the said Arun Kumar Singh before this Court in CWJC No. 942 of 2004. The said petition came to be dismissed on 17th January 2008. The Court also enquired about the disciplinary proceeding held against the Officer-in-charge, the present appellant. In absence of any response by the State, this Court directed the respondent authorities to complete the proceeding against the Officer-in-charge, if pending, or else to re-examine the matter in the light of the order (17th January 2008) made by the Court. 5. Pursuant to the said direction, the proceeding against the appellant was re-opened to the extent of the punishment imposed upon him. The appellant was given a notice to show cause. According to the appellant, he did submit reply to the said show cause and also appeared before the authority. According to the respondent State of Jharkhand, the appellant did not reply to the said show cause notice. By order dated 13th July 2009 made by the Inspector General of Police (Training), Jharkhand, the appellant was dismissed from service. It is the said order of dismissal from service which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 11701 of 2011. The petition was contested by the State of Jharkhand. The learned single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition. Therefore, this Appeal. 6. Learned advocate Mr. K.M. Joseph has appeared for the appellant. Mr. Joseph has submitted that the order of dismissal from service was made without following due process of law. The appellant had asked for oral enquiry which was not permitted. Mr. Joseph has submitted that the finding of guilt is recorded on hearsay evidence. He has also relied upon paragraph 1 of Rule 828 [Appendix 49] of The Bihar Police Manual. He has submitted that the procedure laid down in the said paragraph has not been followed. He has also submitted that the order of dismissal from service has been made in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as no charge was issued upon the appellant for dismissal from service. In support of his submissions, Mr. Joseph has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. In support of his submissions, Mr. Joseph has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Jain ( AIR 1969 SC 983 ) and M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen & Ors. [AIR 1971 (2) SCC 617 ]. 7. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with Mr. Joseph. At the outset, we may note that the proper disciplinary proceeding was conducted against the appellant. The appellant had been given the memorandum of charge. The enquiry officer had conducted the enquiry. The concerned Sub Divisional Police Officer was examined and was also offered for cross-examination. A finding of guilt was recorded by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect against the appellant. 8. May be, the appellant was not aggrieved by the order of punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect but he did not challenge the finding of guilt either. We must, therefore, hold that the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority has become final. It cannot now be challenged in the present petition filed some nine years after the finding of guilt was recorded. Nor it is open for the appellant to challenge the disciplinary proceeding. Any challenge to the disciplinary proceeding or to the finding of guilt is barred by the principle of delay, laches and acquiescence. In our view, therefore, procedural flaw, if any, in holding the disciplinary proceeding is not open to challenge in the present proceeding. 9. It is apparent that in spite of the grave misconduct proved against him, the appellant would have gone scot-free had this Court not directed the respondents to re-examine the matter. The only question thereafter open to the respondents was the quantum of punishment. The appellant had been given the opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. As to the quantum of punishment, we have no reservation in holding that for the guilt proved against the appellant, the only appropriate punishment would be dismissal from service. 10. We see no merit in this Appeal. 11. Appeal is dismissed in limine.