JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing memo dated 02.10.2010, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from services, and quashing of appellate order dated 13.05.2011 and memorial order dated 28.04.2012. 2. The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that the present petitioner-constable along with one Chaukidar was deputed to escort one accused Mukesh Kumar Mehta to C.J.M. Court, Hazaribagh for his production. It is submitted that they escorted the accused properly to Court, where they were told to come later, hence, they came at 4.00 O’clock, then they were told to took the accused to C.J.M. residence. Accordingly, they took the accused to C.J.M. residence where signature of the prisoner was taken and after completing all necessary formality, accused was directed to send back jail. Thereafter, they took the accused by foot and at District More took a rickshaw to hand over the accused in jail on time. The chaukidar did not sit on the rickshaw. As soon as, he reached near Indira Gandhi High School, two persons came on motorcycle and on the point of pistol took away the accused. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately informed the Sadar Police Station, but, F.I.R was not lodged on his statement rather it was lodged on the statement of Chaukidar. It has been submitted that charge was framed for the above occurrence and departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which culminated to dismissal from services. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 02.10.2010, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.05.2011, against which, he preferred memorial. However, during pendency of the memorial, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No. 6283 of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.11.2012 in the light of the statement made by learned counsel for the State that memorial shall be disposed of within a period of 90 days. Thereafter, the memorial of the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 28.04.2012. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Mr. Thereafter, the memorial of the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated 28.04.2012. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the prosecution witnesses has been examined behind the back of the petitioner and no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the prosecution witness, as such this type of statement is inadmissible in law, as per the proposition of law laid down in the case of Sur Enamel and Stampting Works Ltd. Vs. Workmen as reported in AIR 1963 SC 1914 . Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services has been passed on the basis of statement of hearsay witness, which is not admissible in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no date was fixed for examination of defence witnesses, which is essential for departmental proceeding. It has further been submitted that punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate in view of the judgment rendered in the case of Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors as reported in (1983) 2 SCC 442 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that charge with negligence in performance of duty -penalty imposed upon him -no reasonable opportunity of being heard was afforded to appellant disciplinary enquiry has been held in violation of natural justice and accordingly termination order was quashed and respondent was directed to reinstate the appellant in services. 5. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment rendered in the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Ors as reported in (2001) 1 SCC 182 and Arun Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. as reported in (1992) 2 PLJR 228 . 6. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner allowed a prisoner to abscond in connivance with other persons and made a concocted story only to save his skin. The State of Bihar & Ors. as reported in (1992) 2 PLJR 228 . 6. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner allowed a prisoner to abscond in connivance with other persons and made a concocted story only to save his skin. Referring to impugned order dated 02.10.2010, Annexure 3 to the writ application, learned counsel for the State submitted that from perusal of the enquiry report and statements of witnesses, it appears that in connivance with the prisoner, the petitioner helped the prisoner to flee away. It has further come to light that petitioner has been seen to have talk with the accomplice of the prisoner, when he used to go to deposit the prisoners at Jail Hazat. It has further been submitted that the petitioner put undue pressure upon the Chaukidar that he would deposit the prisoner to Jail Hazat whereas Chaukidar was also supposed to accompany with the prisoner, which is totally against the rule. Hence, the disciplinary authority has come to a conclusion that it is not a coincidence rather it is a well planned plot made by the petitioner-delinquent to help the prisoner to flee away. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and having bestowed my anxious consideration to the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i) From perusal of impugned order at Annexure 3, it appears that the petitioner in connivance with the aides of the prisoner allowed the prisoner to flee away, which comes under the category of grave misconduct and tantamounts to loss of confidence in the police force. It appears that in the case at hand there is no violation of principles of natural justice and sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to defend his case and disciplinary authority after considering the exhibits, statement of witnesses and opinion of the conducting officer imposed the impugned order of punishment, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority in memorial. (ii) In the case at hand, in view of the seriousness of allegations and proved misconduct, the power of judicial review cannot be applied. (ii) In the case at hand, in view of the seriousness of allegations and proved misconduct, the power of judicial review cannot be applied. Moreover, the fact findings given by the three consecutive authorities based upon the materials on record, cannot be interfered with, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Another as reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 , specially at paragraph 15, which is quoted hereinbelow:- “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. .............. ” Applying the aforesaid principles of Hon'ble Apex Court, as indicated herein above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.