JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing letter dated 08.02.2010 by which petitioner has been punished in departmental proceeding by reduction of his present pay-scale to stage of basic pay-scale for one year from the date of order and further for quashing appellate order dated 22.12.2010, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Sans details, the facts as delineated in the writ application, is that the petitioner joined police force on 01.11.1992 as police constable and by passage of time, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. While continuing as such, on 11.08.2008, when he was deputed in Deoghar at Sarwani Mela, one S.I. Sheo Kumar Shardul came and told him that Zonal I.G., Dumka is calling you. It is stated that however, the petitioner after attending the natural call met the Zonal I.G, Dumka, the Zonal I.G., Dumka asked the petitioner to do his duty properly, to which, he replied that he is doing duty properly as per instruction. On hearing this, the Zonal I.G, Dumka became angry and asked S.I. Sheo Kumar Shardul to submit a report against the petitioner. On getting such report, the petitioner was suspended, however, later on his suspension was revoked. But, in the meantime, the I.G., Dumka wrote letter to the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh to start a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Accordingly, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and enquiry officer was appointed who submitted his report and basing on the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, the S.P. Hazarinagh recommended punishment of dismissal from services but the D.I.G, Hazaribagh having found the punishment disproportionate, awarded punishment of reduction of rank to basic pay for one year, which is impugned in the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the departmental enquiry the petitioner was found guilty without examining the eye witness-S.I. Sheo Kumar Shardul. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the D.I.G while passing punishment order violated Rule 832 of the Police Manual and Section 7 (a) of the Police Act, 1861, which provides reduction or forfeiture of pay as pecuniary penalty for one month’s salary whereas the respondents-authorities passed reduction of present pay-scale to basic pay-scale of A.S.I for one year, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable on this count. 4. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the allegation that the petitioner, while deputed at Srawani Mela in Deoghar did not do his duty in proper manner and was not even in proper dress and without batch and on being asked by the I.G, Dumka to do his work in proper manner, he misbehaved with him also. On these allegations, departmental proceeding was initiated against him, in which, he was found guilty and punishment of dismissal from services was recommended but taking a lenient view, the impugned order of reduction of his present pay-scale to stage of basic pay-scale for one year from the date of order was passed against the petitioner, which never warrants interference by this Court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 08.02.2010 and appellate order dated 22.12.2010 do not warrant interference by this Court for the following facts and reasons: (i). In the case at hand, the allegation against the petitioner has fully proved. On perusal of the records, it is quite evident that there has been no procedural irregularity from the initiation of disciplinary proceeding till its culmination as the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges by the enquiry officer rather it is a case where the disciplinary authority differing with the recommendation of dismissal from services has awarded lesser punishment of reduction of his present pay-scale to stage of basic pay-scale for one year from the date of order, which has been affirmed in appeal. (ii). The order of reduction in pay-scale has been passed as per Rule 832 of the Police Manual. On conjoint reading of relevant Rules of the Police Manual, reduction of pay-scale for one year is equal to two black-marks and as per Rule 828 of the Police Manual, the punishment as provided in Rule 824 Clause a to f, of that Rule shall be recorded as major punishment. Since the award of black-mark is a major punishment, which has been inflicted on the petitioner on the basis of enquiry report, which indisputably found the petitioner guilty of the charges. (iii). Since the award of black-mark is a major punishment, which has been inflicted on the petitioner on the basis of enquiry report, which indisputably found the petitioner guilty of the charges. (iii). Now, the moot question which falls for determination by this Court is as to whether the impugned order of punishment can be interfered with by this Court on the ground of doctrine of proportionality or in other words on the question of quantum of punishment. (iv).The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Others as reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 has held that the Court will not interfere with the order, unless the punishment order is one which shocks the conscience of the Court. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma as reported in (2005) 3 SCC 401 . In the case at hand, the impugned order is not shockingly disproportionate and is in commensurate with the proved charges, hence, needs no interference by this Court. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and logical sequitur to the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order impugned order dated 08.02.2010 and appellate order dated 22.12.2010 do not warrant any interference and accordingly, the writ petition, is dismissed being devoid of any merit.