JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, C.J. - Challenging the order of dismissal from service on the ground that in an ex-parte departmental proceeding without examining the victim from whom the appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as "petitioner") had snatched Rs. 17,000/- at the Dhanbad Railway Station and without adducing evidence in support of the said charge he could not have been inflicted punishment of dismissal from service, the petitioner approached the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 2710 of 2011, which now stands dismissed vide judgment dated 06.11.2015. 2. On 16.05.2016, to a query posed by the Court whether a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for snatching Rs. 17,000/- from a passenger at the Dhanbad Railway Station, the counsel for the parties sought adjournment. Today, Dr. S.N. Pathak, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that a criminal case vide F.I.R No. 36 of 2008 for offence under Section 384 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner on 28.07.2008. The learned counsel for the State produced copies of F.I.R. and charge sheet along with the record of the departmental proceeding. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. Dr. S.N. Pathak, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that; (i) The entire departmental proceeding stands vitiated for noncompliance of the principles of natural justice, (ii) The findings of the Enquiry Officer is based on inadmissible evidence, (iii) The alleged return of Rs. 17,000/- cannot be taken as an admission of guilt by the petitioner and, (iv) For unauthorised absence of 7 days, the punishment of dismissal from service is so disproportionate to the charge framed and found proved that it shocks the conscience of the Court and hence, warrants interference by this Court. 5. Per contra, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General defending the order passed by the Writ Court submits that notices were issued to the petitioner however, he did not participate in the departmental proceeding and now he cannot complain of breach of the rules of natural justice. It is submitted that the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner during the departmental enquiry was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the materials available on record the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner stood proved. It is submitted that the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner during the departmental enquiry was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer and on the basis of the materials available on record the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner stood proved. The conclusion of the Enquiry Officer been accepted by the departmental authorities which rightly not been interfered by the Writ Court. It is contended that in absence of the petitioner, examination of any other witness would have been a futile exercise. 6. Before adverting to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner on merits of the matter, it needs to be recorded that the contention that the enquiry was conducted in breach of rules of natural justice is liable to be rejected summarily. The petitioner during his unauthorised absence from duty from 22.07.2008 to 30.07.2008 was implicated in a criminal case and he never returned for duties. Now, he cannot raise a grievance to the legality of the departmental proceeding conducted against him. 7. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a constable at Dhanbad where he joined his duty on 24.04.2005. In the year, 2009 he was transferred to Ranchi on deputation where he continued till December, 2010. While posted at Hariharpur Police Station, Dhanbad the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly from 22.07.2008. When a news article was published in the daily newspaper "Hindustan" on 29.07.2008, it came to the notice of the departmental authorities that the petitioner allegedly snatched Rs. 17,000/- from one Md. Mumtaz and accordingly, he was put under suspension on 01.08.2008 and charges were framed against him on 19.08.2008. The petitioner was issued notices for initiation of the departmental enquiry and when he did not appear in the enquiry proceeding, a registered notice was sent to his home address on 25.05.2010. Not only that, the officer-in-charge of the police station of his home town was also instructed to inform the petitioner of the departmental proceeding. On 31.05.2010 he submitted his written defence denying the charge of snatching Rs. 17,000/- from a passenger. During the departmental proceeding two witnesses were examined. The witness Binod Murmu who was officer-in-charge of Hariharpur Police Station deposed that noticing the allegation against the petitioner which was reported in the newspaper, the petitioner was put under suspension. On 31.05.2010 he submitted his written defence denying the charge of snatching Rs. 17,000/- from a passenger. During the departmental proceeding two witnesses were examined. The witness Binod Murmu who was officer-in-charge of Hariharpur Police Station deposed that noticing the allegation against the petitioner which was reported in the newspaper, the petitioner was put under suspension. The paper cutting of the said news article was part of the charge memo, a copy of which was available in the records. The said witness further deposed that on 31.07.2008 he submitted the report which bears his signature. 8. The newspaper report dated 29.07.2008 discloses that the petitioner was detained by Rail Police and he was released on PR Bond. It further appears that the victim namely, Md. Mumtaz and the Booth Operator both had identified the petitioner. The newspaper report also discloses that the relatives of the petitioner returned Rs. 17,000/- to the victim on the same day. Except denying that Rs.17,000/- was voluntarily returned to the victim, at no point in time the petitioner controverted the aforesaid facts reported in the newspaper. It is not in dispute that on 28.07.2008, a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner in which charge sheet no. 2/2009 been submitted by the police. The petitioner remained absent not only from departmental proceeding, he did not report for duty after his brief appearance on 30.07.2008. 9. In the appeal memorandum the petitioner admitted registration of a criminal case however, he not thrown challenge to the correctness of the news article regarding his detention by Rail Police, his release on PR Bond etc. In fact, the petitioner levelled allegation only against the President and Secretary of the police association, who allegedly coerced his wife to return the money. The impugned order dated 06.11.2015 discloses that the Writ Court perused the depositions of the witnesses, newspaper cutting and the report which was produced by the respondent-State along with supplementary counter-affidavit. The learned Single Judge recorded as under: 6(a) "In the instant case, the departmental proceeding been conducted in a fair manner by affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the procedural irregularity whatsoever, not been found nor the proceedings is based on no evidence to call for any interference. The conduct of the petitioner being an employee of disciplined force damaged the reputation and blemished the management of the disciplined police force. The conduct of the petitioner being an employee of disciplined force damaged the reputation and blemished the management of the disciplined police force. Moreover, the scope of interference in a departmental proceeding is very very limited, as been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others v. Raj Kishore Yadav and another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 at para 4 as follows: " ......It is a settled law that the High Court 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 enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed. 10. We are in complete agreement with the conclusions recorded by the learned Writ Court. In "State of A.P. & Ors. v. S. Sree Rama Rao" AIR 1963 SC 1723 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: 7. "....The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution." 11. The petitioner though alleged that the departmental proceeding was conducted in breach of the rules of natural justice, his own conduct does not lend support to the plea raised by him. In "State Bank of India v. Hemant Kumar" (2011) 11 SCC 355 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the principles of natural justice cannot be stretched to a point where they would render in house proceedings unworkable. 12. It cannot be disputed that besides the witnesses cited and the documents mentioned in the charge memo, the department can lead other evidence also. The only requirement in law is that the delinquent must have a fair opportunity to controvert and lead evidence in rebuttal. Since, the petitioner absconded himself from the departmental proceeding, it would have been a futile exercise on the part of the department to lead any further evidence. The only requirement in law is that the delinquent must have a fair opportunity to controvert and lead evidence in rebuttal. Since, the petitioner absconded himself from the departmental proceeding, it would have been a futile exercise on the part of the department to lead any further evidence. In "Major U.R. Bhatt v. Union of India", AIR 1962 SC 1344 , a case in which the delinquent at a later stage of the enquiry declined to take part in the proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "when the appellant declined to take part in the proceedings and failed to remain present, it was open to the enquiry officer to proceed on the materials which were placed before him." The enquiry officer after considering the materials on record recorded a finding of guilt and the departmental authorities have accepted the enquiry report. As noticed above, the learned Writ Court examined the record of the departmental proceeding, to satisfy itself whether there is some evidence led against the petitioner during the departmental enquiry. We have also perused the record of the departmental enquiry and the First Information Report as well as the charge sheet. 13. No doubt, on the point of snatching of Rs. 17,000/- from Md. Mumtaz, the department could have examined the said victim and/or the officer-in-charge of the Rail PS. However, absence of such evidence would not turn the case against the petitioner as one of "no evidence". Since the petitioner remained absent from the departmental proceeding, non-examination of the victim and the officer-in-charge of Rail police is of no consequence. The sufficiency or adequacy of evidence led during the departmental enquiry in support of the charges framed against the petitioner is not an issue which can be agitated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The reliance placed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner on "Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors. v. Jai Bhagwan" (2011) 6 SCC 376 is misconceived. In the said case, there was an allegation of bribery against the delinquent however, the evidence led during the departmental enquiry was lacking on the point of demanding money. Moreover, no criminal case was registered against the delinquent in the said case. v. Jai Bhagwan" (2011) 6 SCC 376 is misconceived. In the said case, there was an allegation of bribery against the delinquent however, the evidence led during the departmental enquiry was lacking on the point of demanding money. Moreover, no criminal case was registered against the delinquent in the said case. In fact, in the present case the abscondance of the petitioner is a circumstance, which we must take note of while exercising power under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. It is not a case in which the petitioner been inflicted with penalty of dismissal from service on the evidence of alleged return of Rs. 17,000/- to the victim. The registration of the criminal case and the subsequent trial for committing offence under Section 384 I.P.C. are matters of record. Even the absence from duty from 22.07.2008 to 30.07.2008 for which separate charge was framed, not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. He not been exonerated of the said charge, rather his salary for the said period been withheld. 15. Having considered all aspects of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the instant Letters Patent Appeal lacks merit and accordingly, it warrants dismissal. Ordered accordingly. Appeal dismissed.