JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing enquiry report dated 10.01.2013, the penal order dated 12.08.2013 and appellate order, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.07.2015 and further prayed for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits. 2. The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that petitioner while working as Bench Clerk of learned Munsif, Civil Courts, Lohardaga some documents of Title Suit No. 07 of 2001 were found missing, which came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 05.05.2012. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner requested learned Munsif to permit him to lodge F.I.R against Seraj Ansari and Fataul Rahman, Advocate or; alternatively to the learned C.J.M, Lohardaga for registering an official complaint. But, on the contrary, the petitioner (the Bench Clerk) and Office Clerk were directed to submit show cause vide order dated 08.05.2012 for not producing the entire depositions and exhibited documents. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 14.05.2012. Thereafter, by confidential letter dated 14.05.2012, the learned Munsif, Lohardaga reported the matter to respondent no. 2. It has further been submitted that on 20.05.2012, in this regard, there was a discussion on mobile with the then Judge-in-Charge, who directed the wife of the petitioner to send a sum of Rs. 35,000/- to the then Principal District & Sessions Judge, Lohardaga by 10.30 p.m in the night so that the petitioner may be saved, failing which the petitioner had to face the consequences. Thereafter, the wife of the petitioner submitted representation to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court of Jharkhand by her representation dated 21.05.2012 and also sent the same by FAX on 30.05.2012. It is submitted that on the very next day, the petitioner was put under suspension vide memo dated 31.05.2012. Thereafter, memo of charge was framed against the petitioner vide letter dated 12.06.2012 and departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was directed vide notice dated 18.06.2012 to appear before Enquiry Officer on 26.06.2012. But due to cardiac problem, the petitioner had time and again requested the authorities for extension of time to appear before the enquiry officer and also prayed for G.P.F advance to meet expenses to be incurred on his treatment at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. But due to cardiac problem, the petitioner had time and again requested the authorities for extension of time to appear before the enquiry officer and also prayed for G.P.F advance to meet expenses to be incurred on his treatment at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi. It is submitted that finally the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 11.10.2012 in the departmental proceeding from Dr. Ram Manohar Hospital Lohia Hospital at New Delhi itself by Speed Post. It has further been stated that immediately after coming from Hospital, the petitioner submitted representation dated 15.04.2013 to know the progress of departmental proceeding but it was informed that the departmental proceeding was conducted ex-parte and enquiry report was submitted on 11.01.2013 itself. Thereafter, notice was published in Daily Prabhat Khabar on 06.05.2013 directing the petitioner to submit show-cause. Thereafter, the petitioner by representation dated 08.05.2013 requested the respondent no. 2 to recall the ex-parte departmental proceeding and allow the petitioner to put his defence before the Enquiry Officer, but, when no order on his representation was passed, the petitioner preferred writ petition, being W.P. (S) No. 3219 of 2013. However, during pendency of the writ application, the impugned punishment order dated 12.08.2013 was passed whereby the petitioner was dismissed from services and the same was served upon the wife of the petitioner on 21.08.2013 along with copy of impugned order, enquiry report and the copy of show cause notice dated 19.01.2013. Hence, the writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.04.2014 giving liberty to assail the impugned order of dismissal. Being aggrieved the impugned order of dismissal from services dated 12.08.2013, the petitioner preferred appeal and the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand has been pleased to reject the appeal and the order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.07.2015. 3. Being aggrieved the impugned order of dismissal from services dated 12.08.2013, the petitioner preferred appeal and the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand has been pleased to reject the appeal and the order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.07.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the factual aspect of the matter submitted that the entire case record of the T.S. No. 07 of 2001 was brought by the peon on the order of Presiding Officer from the office one day before i.e. 04.05.2012 and the same was carried to the residential office of learned Munsif, Lohardaga and on the next day i.e. on 05.05.2012, the same was brought in the Court, where the Presiding Officer kept the same in his custody and dictated the order and accordingly learned Munsif himself handed over the entire file to learned lawyer of plaintiff, Sri F. Rahman for necessary amendment in the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that copies of the depositions of the witnesses examined during the course of enquiry were never supplied to the petitioner nor any opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. It has further been submitted that the entire departmental proceeding was conducted behind the back of the petitioner in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that previous punishment, if any, if not included in the memo of charge, cannot be taken into consideration while passing the order of punishment, but, in the instant case, this established principle of law has been given a complete go by. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from perusal of material available on record, it would be evident that there was no ulterior motive on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that even the impugned order of dismissal from services is disproportionate in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Singh Vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr as reported in (2003) 8 SCC 9 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that for the charges of missing of records dismissal from services would be a disproportionate punishment. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Bhagat Ram Vs. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors as reported in (1983) 2 SCC 442 on the issue of violation of principles of natural justice and further the decision rendered in the case of Sandeep Kumar Vs. The Union of India & Ors as reported in 2016 (1) JLJR 10 . 5. As against the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned G.A appearing for the respondents has assiduously submitted that the petitioner while working as Bench Clerk to the learned Munif, Civil Courts, Lohardaga and being the custodian of the record placed on cause list on 05.05.2012 dealt with the entire case of T.S. No. 07 of 2001, including depositions, exhibits, report of survey knowing pleader commissioner etc. and misplaced the entire record material, which amounts to gross negligence, grave misconduct and dereliction of duty under Rule 3 of the Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1976 rendering himself unbecoming a Government Servant. On these charges, the petitioner was put under suspension and Departmental Proceeding No. 05 of 2012 was initiated against him. It has further been submitted that after initiation of departmental proceeding, on 08.06.2012, process server when went to serve the notice of departmental proceeding, the delinquent-petitioner, he refused to accept the same after reading the same. However, vide letter dated 12.06.2012, the petitioner sent letter to the Judge-in-Charge regarding his illness and thereafter again sent a letter seeking headquarter leave from 19.06.2012 to 28.06.2012 for attending the marriage ceremony etc. Thereafter, again on 29.06.2012, the petitioner sought permission not to appear in the departmental proceeding from 29.06.2012 to 10.07.2012 as per the advice of the doctor. Thereafter, several letters were sent by the petitioner only for the purpose to linger the departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the Judge-in-Charge requested the Civil Surgeon to constitute a medical board regarding ailment of the petitioner and notice to this effect was sent through process server to the petitioner, but the petitioner after seeing this, refused to accept the same. Thereafter, several letters were sent by the petitioner only for the purpose to linger the departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the Judge-in-Charge requested the Civil Surgeon to constitute a medical board regarding ailment of the petitioner and notice to this effect was sent through process server to the petitioner, but the petitioner after seeing this, refused to accept the same. Thereafter, at every stage of proceeding, notices were sent through process server and by postal service but it is the petitioner and his wife who refused to accept the same, and even the wife of the petitioner threatened the process server of dire consequence, which was returned unserved with an postal endorsement that “refused by Gayatri Devi (wife of the petitioner), and it is well-settled principles of law that refusal of notice by wife of the delinquent amounts to valid service of notice. The enquiry officer submitted its report on 10.01.2013. A second show-cause notice was sent on 19.01.2013 to the petitioner but the same was not accepted. Thereafter, ex-parte departmental proceeding was conducted, after examining the evidences of the witnesses and documents available on records. Lastly, on 06.05.2013, notice was published in daily newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” and even then, when the petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of dismissal from services, which has been affirmed in appeal and same never warrants interference by this Court. 6. 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 12.08.2013, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services and appellate order, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.07.2015, do not warrant interference by this Court for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i) In the matter of missing of record of Title Suit No. 07 of 2001, which includes deposition of witnesses, exhibits, Survey Knowing Pleader Commissioner etc., charge was framed against the petitioner, as on the alleged date i.e. on 05.05.2012 the matter was on Board, and petitioner being Bench Clerk of Munsif, Civil Courts, Lohardaga was the custodian of the record. However, on the contrary, the petitioner has alleged that the Presiding officer kept the entire record with documents with him at his residence on 04.05.2012 and on 05.05.2012 during court hour handed over the same to learned counsel for the plaintiff, from where it is misplaced. (ii) From perusal of the record, it further appears that in the departmental proceeding, petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend his case but the petitioner for the one pretext and the other evaded notice and tried to linger the proceeding. At every stage of proceeding, i.e. from the initiation of departmental proceeding till its culmination, the disciplinary authority sent notices by post and by process server but the petitioner did not accept that notices and the notices were returned unserved and further complaints are there against the petitioner and his wife that they threatened the process server of dire consequences. Hence, there is no shadow of doubt that at any stage of departmental proceeding, there is violation of principles of natural justice. (iii) Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was unable to participate in the departmental proceeding and when he took the pretext of his illness, the respondents-authority constituted a Medical Board for his examination and notice to that effect was sent to him, but, the petitioner refused to accept the same and time and again only tried to defer the matter by writing various letters. (iv) Moreover, there is limited scope for interference with the findings recorded by the enquriy officer and punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs Raj Kishore Yadav and Another as reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 at paragraph 4 has held that: “4. ........ It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquriy officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed..........”. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another as reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 has held that High Court under Article 226 cannot disturb the facts and findings given by the disciplinary authority. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another as reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 has held that High Court under Article 226 cannot disturb the facts and findings given by the disciplinary authority. (v).In the case at hand, having considered the gravity of proved charges, the quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority, basing on the elaborate findings of enquiry officer, being affirmed by the appellate authority, does not require interference by this Court and is in commensurate with the proved charges. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and logical sequitur to the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, impugned order dated 12.08.2013, and appellate order, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.07.2015 do not warrant any interference and accordingly, the writ petition, is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Petition dismissed.