JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing of order dated 25.04.2011 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent no. 4 pertaining to dismissal from services and the order passed by respondent no. 3 vide Memo no. 417 dated 16.05.2012 (Annexure-5) affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by respondent no.2 issued under memo No. 255 dated 03.09.2013 (Annexure-7) affirming the order of the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority. 2. Sans details, the facts, as stated in the writ application, is that in the year 1994 the petitioner was appointed as Constable in the district of Chatra under the respondents. In the year 2000 the petitioner was transferred to Bokaro district police. While continuing, as such on 18.09.2010 (Annexure-1) the petitioner was placed under suspension on the allegations of misbehaviour with his superior authorities and charge sheet was served upon the petitioner asking for show cause reply. The petitioner submitted his show cause reply before the respondent no. 4 denying all the charges and for exonerating him from the alleged charges. The inquiry officer concluded the inquiry and submitted inquiry report. In pursuance to the inquiry report, the petitioner was served with second show cause notice containing the proposed punishment of dismissal from services vide order dated 10.03.2011 (Annexure-3) and vide order dated 26.04.2011 the petitioner was served with office order dated 25.04.2011 dismissing the petitioner from services. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was also rejected in a summary manner as evident from order dated 16.05.2012 (Annexure-5). Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a revision before the respondent no.2 and the revisional authority vide order dated 03.09.2013 (Annexure-7) dismissed the memo of revision of the petitioner in a mechanical manner without appreciating the grounds taken by the petitioner. Hence, the writ application has been filed by the petitioner invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of the grievances. 3. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents repelling the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been given full opportunity of hearing to participate in the departmental enquiry. 3. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents repelling the averments made in the writ application. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been given full opportunity of hearing to participate in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner has nowhere put forth any written submission regarding his wishes to examine any witnesses as alleged in the writ application. 4. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in pursuance to order dated 08.12.2015 and 12.01.2016 annexing the entire records of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. 5. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Harsh learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the non-examination of the witnesses, who were present at the time of alleged occurrence, has vitiated the entire proceeding. The most vital fact which has been overlooked by the inquiry officer that the senior most official, who was accompanying, while the petitioner was alleged to have misbehaved during patrolling with his colleague, has not reported the matter, rather the complainant who is one of the colleagues of the petitioner has reported the same and this creates a serious doubt over whole of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, from the very inception of the departmental inquiry, the petitioner has alleged mala fide and biasness on the part of the complainant because of the fact that the petitioner objected to the misdeeds of the complainants, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the respondents basing on the inquiry report are wholly unlawful, unjust and without any authority of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner is that in drunken state, he misbehaved with the colleagues, but, no medical test has been conducted, which could conclusively prove that the petitioner was under influence of alcohol, therefore, the findings of the inquiry officer in absence of any medical test/alcoholic test appears to be fallacious. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are highly disproportionate to the alleged charges. 7. As against the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents-State has assiduously submitted that full dressed departmental inquiry has been conducted by affording all reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are highly disproportionate to the alleged charges. 7. As against the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents-State has assiduously submitted that full dressed departmental inquiry has been conducted by affording all reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. There has been no procedural irregularity nor the report of the enquiry is based on no evidence. On the contrary, the petitioner has been found guilty by the inquiry officer, basing on which the impugned order of punishment has been passed, which has been affirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority, therefore, the actions of the respondents may not be subject to judicial review. 8. After hearing learned counsels for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the pleadings, I am of the considered view that there has been no procedural violation in the departmental inquiry. 9. In view of the seriousness of allegations committed by the petitioner, the power of judicial review cannot be applied. Moreover, the entire finding given by the three consecutive authorities i.e. disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as revisional authority based upon the materials on record, cannot be subject to judicial review, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha and another as reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 , specially at paragraph 15, which is quoted herein below: “15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions ………” Therefore, in view of the aforesaid factual as well as the legal dictum, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders, so far as any procedural irregularity and violation of principle of natural justice from the inception of proceeding till its culmination is concerned. But, considering the fact that the extreme punishment for dismissal has been passed, the case of the petitioner safely falls within the ambit and scope of doctrine of proportionality. Even assuming that the charges are proved in the inquiry proceeding but the punishment inflicted appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the alleged charges/misconduct, therefore, in view of the aforesaid factual and legal aspect, this Court is inclined to exercise judicial review only to the limited extent on the question of quantum of punishment to be awarded taking into consideration the totality of the charges, its correspondent findings thereto. 10. Viewed thus, the impugned orders of punishment dated 25.04.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority being affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 16.05.2012 and the revisional authority vide order dated 03.09.2013 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondents to pass appropriate order only on the question of quantum of punishment within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/communication of the order, strictly in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.