Order : D.N.Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 3.4.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2004 whereby petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and, therefore, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that more than three occasions this petitioner had checked the material supplied by the supplier and, therefore, there is no dereliction in the duty of this appellant who was working as Deputy Chief Materials Manager with the respondent. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order dated 3.4.2014, deserves to be quashed and setaside. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that this appellant (original petitioner) was working as Deputy Chief Material Manager with the respondent Bokaro Steel Ltd, a unit of the Steel Authority of India, is duty bound to audit the quality parameters of the materials supplied by the supplier. Chargesheet was filed against this appellant on 6th September, 2001. Thereafter, enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 22nd November, 2001 wherein charges levelled against this appellant about dereliction of duty and other two charges were found to be proved and ultimately, disciplinary authority vide order dated 29th June, 2002 reduced his pay scale to the minimum grade of E5 and the same was challenged before the Departmental authority who dismissed the Appeal vide order dated 1st October, 2003. It is further submitted by counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that thus, charges levelled against this appellant were proved and the quantum of punishment is also not disproportionate. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 4. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) This appellant is original petitioner who was working as Deputy Chief Material Manager and whose responsibility was to certify the materials supplied by the suppler and he has to inspect the said material. It appears that this appellant had certified total eleven consignments supplied by M/s Sourvenior Ceramics, Faridabad, U.P. out of which eight were found deviating in quality parameters. Crosschecking was also done at Bokaro Steel Laboratory resulting to the fact that substandard materials were supplied by the supplier which also reveals that there is dereliction of duty on the part of this appellant because this appellant had not checked properly the quality parameters of the materials supplied by the supplier. (ii) A chargesheet was filed on 6th September, 2001 thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was entrusted with the inquiry proceeding and adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to the appellant before the Inquiry Officer. A report has been submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 22nd November, 2001 wherein all the three charges levelled against this appellant were found to be proved. (iii) Thereafter, disciplinary authority before imposing punishment again given adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant. Thereafter, disciplinary authority vide order dated 29th June, 2002 reduced the pay scale of this appellant to the minimum grade of E5. (iv) This appellant against the order of disciplinary authority had preferred an Appeal before the Appellate authority. Again opportunity of being heard was given to this appellant. Thereafter, appellate authority dismissed the departmental appeal vide order dated 1st October, 2003 and the punishment inflicted upon the appellant was also confirmed. (v) Looking to the report of Inquiry Officer dated 22nd November, 2001 it is at annexure 3 to the memo of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2004 and also looking to the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 29th June, 2002 which is at annexure 6 to the memo of the writ petition and also looking to the order passed by the appellate authority dated 1st October, 2003 which is at annexure 8 to the memo of the writ petition, it appears that adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant and there is no error in holding the departmental enquiry. The charges levelled against this appellant about dereliction and negligence in performing his duty have been proved. Cross checking by Bokaro Steel Laboratory has proved that out of eleven consignments eight were not found fit and despite all these certificates were issued by this appellant to the supplier that the supplier is supplying correct materials. The charges levelled against this appellant about dereliction and negligence in performing his duty have been proved. Cross checking by Bokaro Steel Laboratory has proved that out of eleven consignments eight were not found fit and despite all these certificates were issued by this appellant to the supplier that the supplier is supplying correct materials. Thus, dereliction of duty and negligence in performing his duty have been proved. Now, only question left out to decide by this Court about quantum of punishment. (vi) looking to the nature of misconducts committed by this appellant and looking to the quantum of punishment inflicted upon this appellant of reducing his pay scale to the minimum grade of E5 It appears that the punishment can not be labelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment nor it is unreasonably excessive punishment. On the contrary, this punishment is in proportion with the nature of the misconduct. Out of eleven consignments eight were found unfit i.e. more than 70 % of the total consignments were unfit. This is the performance of this appellant as a Deputy Chief Material Manager. Looking to his designation in the respondent he ought to have perform his duty accurately. This aspect of the matter had been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge by dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 5. We, therefore, see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2810 of 2004 dated 3.4.2014. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal hence, the same is hereby dismissed.