JUDGMENT By Court—Challenging the order of removal from service dated 01.08.2002 and the appellate order dated 17.12.2002, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force on 20.02.1998 and he was posted at C.I.S.F Unit, B.S.L, Bokaro on 11.09.1994. The petitioner while working with B.S.L, Bokaro was looking after the work relating to the Canteen allowances and other related claims. On 19.02.2002, a Charge Memo was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that he had wrongfully misappropriated Rs.2,00,193/-. The petitioner was suspended since 26.11.2001. After the enquiry, order of punishment dated 01.08.2002 was passed against the petitioner and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by order dated 17.12.2002, whereby the order of removal from service has been confirmed by the appellate authority. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents, in which, it has been specifically averred that during the course of departmental enquiry, 13 prosecution witnesses and one court witness were examined in presence of petitioner and the petitioner was given ample opportunity to cross-examine them. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner on 08.07.2002 and the petitioner submitted his final representation on 25.07.2002, wherein he did not produce anything substantial in his defence. On a consideration of the materials on record, the order of penalty of removal from service was passed against the petitioner. 4. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to point out any irregularity during the departmental enquiry. The allegation against the petitioner is of misappropriation and the petitioner has not put forward any evidence except that, being a Constable he could not have been the Drawing and Disbursing Authority and therefore, the charges are wrong and misleading. 6. I find that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious and during the departmental enquiry, 14 witnesses were examined and the enquiry officer concluded that the charges against the petitioner are proved. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have also concurred with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. In “U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. I find that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious and during the departmental enquiry, 14 witnesses were examined and the enquiry officer concluded that the charges against the petitioner are proved. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have also concurred with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. In “U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma”, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 555 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'dismissal from service' is the appropriate punishment in cases relating to corruption/misappropriation. It has been held,-- 23. “In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh and U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar this Court held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption/ misappropriation, the only punishment is dismissal.” 8. In this view of the matter, I find myself unable to interfere in this matter and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.