JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing notification no. 2650 (S) dated 26.04.2016 read with Memo No. 2651 (S) dated 26.04.2016, Where by the petitioner has been imposed with a punishment of ‘Censure’. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on 16.06.1987 and by passage of time, the petitioner was granted regular promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) in Road Construction Department. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 415 of 2015 for payment of arrears of salary and other service benefits with allowances legally payable to him on account of his promotion, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.07.2015 to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law after due scrutiny of relevant records. But, it is alleged that immediately after receipt of copy of this order, the respondents-authorities served a show cause notice dated 18.08.2015 upon the petitioner to submit explanation against the alleged indiscipline and arbitrariness for proceeding on leave, to which, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 27.08.2015. Pursuant thereto, the respondents-authorities rejected the claim of the petitioner with regard to arrears of salary for the post of Superintending Engineer and also for the post of Chief Engineer, I/C on the erroneous ground and wrong interpretation of Rule 103 of the Jharkhand Service Code. Thereafter, as directed by the respondents, the petitioner took over the charge of the post of Technical Secretary to Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department, Ranchi. Thereafter, the Dy. Secretary vide show cause notice dated 22.12.2015 asked the petitioner to submit explanation for the alleged leave, to which, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 30.12.2015. However, the petitioner being aggrieved with the show cause notice dated 18.08.2015 as well as show cause notice dated 22.12.2015 preferred W.P. (S) No. 01 of 2016, in which, this Court passed an interim order dated 05.01.2016 whereby it is directed not to take coercive step pursuant to issuance of notice dated 22.12.2015. it has been submitted that persons juniors to him have been given to work on the post of Engineer-in-chief on I/c basis and the petitioner has been deprived the suitable posting. it has been submitted that persons juniors to him have been given to work on the post of Engineer-in-chief on I/c basis and the petitioner has been deprived the suitable posting. Hence, the petitioner filed one Interlocutory Application, being one I.A. No. 446 of 2016, in W.P. (S) No. 01 of 2016, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for suitable posting. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that only in order to frustrate the genuine claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion and in order to overcome the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 415 of 2015, the respondents had been continuously trying to punish the petitioner and lastly the respondents issued notification no. 2650 (S) dated 26.04.2016 imposing punishment of ‘Censure’ against the petitioner to keep away the petitioner from the zone of consideration for promotion and to accommodate juniors to the petitioner on the higher posts. The Ministry of Road, Transport & Highway, Govt. of India sanctioned a job of “Construction of bridge over Dhamni Nala”, for which, tender was invited and the “Maa Mansa Enterprises”, Garhwa being the local bidder and it had completed one work during last three years and further the work concerned was of public importance, the petitioner being Chief Engineer, National Highway Wing, Road Construction Department, allotted the work to them. But on a complaint filed by one unsuccessful bidder- Harpreet Singh through a political person, the petitioner forwarded the photocopies of the documents relating to tender to Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department in compliance of departmental letter dated 02.07.2013 an explanation was sought in this matter vide letter dated 08.08.2013, to which the petitioner replied vide letter dated 06.09.2013. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that till 25.04.2016 no action was taken and all of a sudden, in order to frustrate the genuine claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion and in order to overcome the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 415 of 2015, the respondents had been continuously trying to punish the petitioner and lastly the respondents issued notification no. 2650 (S) dated 26.04.2016 imposing punishment of ‘Censor’ against the petitioner to keep away the petitioner from the zone of consideration for promotion and to accommodate juniors to the petitioner on the higher posts. 4. 2650 (S) dated 26.04.2016 imposing punishment of ‘Censor’ against the petitioner to keep away the petitioner from the zone of consideration for promotion and to accommodate juniors to the petitioner on the higher posts. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the work under question was very urgent and in order to avoid dislocation of traffic of NH-75 and looking to the urgency of the work, the MAA Mansa Enterprises was allotted work in consonance with the Rules and Regulations and the petitioner, being the Chief Engineer was fully competent to award the contract in favour of MAA Mansa Enterprises. Referring to the decision rendered in L.P.A. No. 402 of 2005, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is well settled that a certain amount of discretion has to be left with the authorities to relax any of the less stringent conditions in public interest. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order has travelled beyond the show cause. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned A.A.G submitted that a complaint was filed against the petitioner by Mr. Indar Singh Namdhari, the then Member of Parliament vide letter dated 20.06.2013 about the irregularities in the allotment of work of construction of bridge over Dhamni Nala at NH 75. In view of the above irregularities, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause dated 08.08.2013 to the petitioner, to which, he replied vide letter dated 06.09.2013, which on being found unsatisfactory, impugned punishment of censor has been imposed upon the petitioner, which is in accordance with laws and provisions of Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016. Learned A.A.G further submits that Memo of Charge and impugned order does not reflect that it is in response of order passed W.P. (S) No. 415 of 2015 and the impugned order has been passed only on the basis of irregularities as aforesaid. 6. Referring to the decision rendered in the case of Om Kumar & Ors Vs. Union of India as reported in (2001) 2 SCC 386 , learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submitted that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited. Union of India as reported in (2001) 2 SCC 386 , learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submitted that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited. In this regard, learned counsel further referred to the judgment rendered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal as reported in (2006) 8 SCC 108 , Where in the Hon'ble Court has hold that the normally, the Courts do not substitute the punishment unless they are shockingly disproportionate and in the case at hand, it is in commensurate with the proved charges. 7. 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 26.04.2016, whereby the impugned punishment of censor has been imposed upon the petitioner, does not warrant interference by this Court for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i). On a complaint filed against the petitioner regarding irregularities in allotment of work of construction of bridge over Dhamni Nala at N.H. 75, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. On the merit of the case, the grounds taken by learned senior counsel for the petitioner appears to be not legally sustainable on the ground that though the petitioner, being Chief Engineer of National Highway Wing, was competent to award contract to “Maa Mansa Enterprises” and certain discretion was left to him under the relevant provisions of P.W.D Code and being the highest authority, the power was conferred upon him to award tender but he could not have abdicated his responsibility of evaluating the relevant documents of the tender nor petitioner could take a plea of approving the suggestions given by his subordinate officers or to sign on the dotted line, to award tender. More is the power, the greater is the responsibility. In the instant case, admittedly the documents submitted by the said tenderer was found to be forged in the Audit and the experience in completion of similar nature of work was relegated to the background whereas due importance was given to the place of resident of the tenderer. (ii). More is the power, the greater is the responsibility. In the instant case, admittedly the documents submitted by the said tenderer was found to be forged in the Audit and the experience in completion of similar nature of work was relegated to the background whereas due importance was given to the place of resident of the tenderer. (ii). Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has come with a specific plea that in order to frustrate the genuine claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion and to overcome the order dated 22.07.2015 in W.P. (S) No. 415 of 2015, the impugned order has been passed, but this argument has no leg to stand as prior to passing of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 415 of 2015, explanation was sought for from the petitioner in the matter of awarding tender vide letter dated 08.08.2013, which culminated in passing of impugned order dated 26.04.2016. (iii). Moreover, there is no infirmity in the impugned order from the initiation of the proceeding till its culmination for imposition of punishment and the facts as has been unfolded in the present case leaves no ground for interference in view of the limited jurisdiction of this Court to exercise judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, in view of the laws laid down in the case of Om Kumar (Supra) and U.P. Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun as the punishment does not appears to be shockingly disproportionate, hence, on that count also the impugned order does not warrant interference. (iv). Considering the gravity of charges, the impugned punishment, which is minor in nature and the effect of punishment which is going to be lapsed after expiry of five months from now and furthermore, the effect of censor has been reduced from three years to one years vide notification dated 2.09.2014, the impugned punishment does not come in the purview of judicial review on the ground of doctrine of proportionality so as to prick the conscience of this Court to interfere with the impugned order of punishment. 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and logical sequitur to the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated notification no. 2650 (S) dated 26.04.2016 read with Memo No. 2651 (S) dated 26.04.2016 does not warrant interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.