JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 22.02.2002 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from services and further prayer has been made to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed on 06.02.1979 in the capacity of Junior Engineer in the undivided State of Bihar. While continuing as such, the petitioner was posted in Ranchi Water Ways Division in between 28.07.1986 to 17.09.1990 to work under a Scheme of State of Bihar known as “Kansh Reservoir Scheme” along with other engineers. But, on the complaint made by one Chhotanagpur Nagrik Kalyan Committee, which was nothing do with the project, an internal vigilance enquiry was made against the petitioner and other persons. Thereafter, the Vigilance team after considering the reply and other materials, resolved the matter. The petitioner was transferred from Ranchi to Deoghar, where he was served with an office order dated 26.11.1993, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, in which, charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 12.04.1995 for the alleged irregularities committed by him during 1988-89 in construction of “Kansh Reservoir Scheme”. In the departmental proceeding, the conducting officer was appointed on 12.04.1995. It has further been averred that after enquiry, the conducting officer submitted its report wherein the petitioner along with other Junior Engineers were declared innocent and charges levelled against them were not proved. But, when the enquiry report was received by Government, the authority of the State Government took a view that the matter requires a fresh enquiry as the enquiry officer did not take into consideration the report of Chief Engineer issued on 20.12.1993. Accordingly, the petitioner and other Junior Engineers were again called for fresh enquiry and accordingly, second enquiry report was submitted where the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges. Thereafter, second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.1999, to which, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 09.08.1999. But, the respondents-authorities without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and the documents annexed therewith passed impugned order of dismissal from services vide order dated 22.02.2002, which is impugned in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental proceeding was fraught with procedural irregularities. But, the respondents-authorities without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and the documents annexed therewith passed impugned order of dismissal from services vide order dated 22.02.2002, which is impugned in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental proceeding was fraught with procedural irregularities. In the departmental proceeding neither the petitioner was afforded with opportunity of hearing nor the prejudicial documents was supplied to the petitioner even on repeated request, which adversely affected the case of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that during enquiry none of the witnesses were examined and petitioner was not afforded opportunity to produce his witness. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the complaint by one Nagrik Kalyan Committee vigilance enquiry was done, in which, the petitioner was exonerated. Thereafter, in departmental proceeding in the 1st enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, the charges levelled against the petitioner was found to be not proved. But that enquiry report was brushed aside while passing the impugned order and without disbelieving or discarding the findings recorded by the 1st enquiry officer, fresh enquiry was conducted, in which, another enquiry report was furnished and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and basing on this report, the impugned order of removal from services was passed after about 13 years of the work in question. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Engineer-in-Chief is the appointing authority of the petitioner, therefore, any decision with regard to passing of final order in the departmental proceeding ought to have been by him, but, in the case at hand decision has been taken at the level of Cabinet Minister in dismissing the petitioner. In this way, the State Government, which is the appellate authority acted as disciplinary authority has usurped power to inflict the punishment as the original authority. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated as one of the Junior Engineer, Washir Ahmad, whose case falls on the same footing, has been given second show cause notice stating that the State Government decided to dismiss him but he was reinstated in services by giving two minor punishment vide order dated 18.03.1998. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated as one of the Junior Engineer, Washir Ahmad, whose case falls on the same footing, has been given second show cause notice stating that the State Government decided to dismiss him but he was reinstated in services by giving two minor punishment vide order dated 18.03.1998. Further, for the same set of charges proceeding was also initiated against one Rajendra Kumar, Junior Engineer, along with petitioner, has been reinstated in services but the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination. 7. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 5 raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ application stating that the writ petition is time barred as the impugned order was passed in year 2002 and the petitioner approached this Court after eight years and further since the impugned order of dismissal has been passed by the State of Bihar, hence, case of the petitioner cannot be considered by the State of Jharkhand. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the matter relates to 1988-89 but as per the order passed in CWJC No. 3119 of 1997, fresh memo of charge was served upon the petitioner along with others and thereupon enquiry was done and basing of such enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from services. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State of Bihar submitted that for certain irregularities in implementation of “Kansh Reservoir Scheme”, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which culminated in passing of impugned order of dismissal from services after giving adequate opportunity of hearing in due compliance of the principles of natural justice. 9. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the documents on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any legally tenable point to warrant interference by this Court, due to following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement: (i). In the present case, for certain financial irregularities and misconduct in construction of “Kans Reservoir Scheme” during the period 1988-89, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Flying Squad of the Department, which found the charges levelled against the petitioner and others true. Accordingly, separate show cause notice was issued to delinquent-employees vide letter dated 08.06.1990, to which petitioner replied. In the present case, for certain financial irregularities and misconduct in construction of “Kans Reservoir Scheme” during the period 1988-89, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Flying Squad of the Department, which found the charges levelled against the petitioner and others true. Accordingly, separate show cause notice was issued to delinquent-employees vide letter dated 08.06.1990, to which petitioner replied. But, the same being found not satisfactory, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide departmental order dated 26.11.1993 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. Thereafter, the enquiry officer conducted enquiry, who submitted report before the disciplinary authority. The Enquiry report was examined in the Department and the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the enquiry report, as it did not take into consideration the report dated 20.12.1993 of the Chief Engineer, directed vide departmental letter dated 16.10.1995 to conduct enquiry afresh. In the meantime, suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order dated 28.11.1995 in the light order passed in the writ petitions filed by some co-delinquents. However, in the light of order dated 16.10.1995 for conducting fresh departmental enquiry, enquiry officer again submitted report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and accordingly second show cause notice was issued. Being aggrieved, the petitioner and co-delinquents preferred writ application, which was disposed of with direction to serve fresh memo of charges on the petitioners and proceed accordingly. In compliance thereof, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, in which, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and admittedly, after adhering to the principles of natural justice, impugned order of dismissal from services dated 22.02.2002 was passed. (ii). From chronological study of events, it does not appear that there has been any procedural irregularity or impugned order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice rather the last enquiry was conducted in due compliance of order passed by this Court, hence, on this count the impugned order needs no interference. (iii). Furthermore, in view of proved guilt, the punishment awarded does not appear to be disproportionate as to warrant interference by this Court. So far as question of disparity is concerned, it is the specific case of the respondents that different delinquents have been awarded different punishments in proportion of their respective guilt proved in the departmental proceeding. (iv). (iii). Furthermore, in view of proved guilt, the punishment awarded does not appear to be disproportionate as to warrant interference by this Court. So far as question of disparity is concerned, it is the specific case of the respondents that different delinquents have been awarded different punishments in proportion of their respective guilt proved in the departmental proceeding. (iv). In the case at hand, in view of the seriousness of allegation and misconduct committed by the petitioner, the power of judicial review cannot be applied and moreover the fact finding given by the enquiry officer based upon the materials on record cannot be interfered with, as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme 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 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 reappreciate 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. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, as stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of dismissal from services does not warrant interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.