JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 18.04.2016, passed by the Respondent No. 1 and the letter dated 20.04.2016 pertaining to removal from services of HEC with effect from 18.04.2016 vide Annexure-1 series to the writ petition. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner joined as Director (Personnel) in the Heavy Engineering Corporation (HEC) in the year 2012. After joining on the said post, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities. In the month of July, 2014, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Being aggrieved by the order of suspension, the petitioner appealed against the said order for revocation of the suspension order. Being aggrieved by the suspension order, the petitioner preferred W.P. (S) No. 424 of 2015 in the High Court of Jharkhand against continuous suspension without the issuance of charge-sheet for a prolonged period and the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 15th April, 2015. The petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 271 of 2015 against the order of dismissal of suspension order, which was disposed of with certain observations. While continuing, as such, a statement of Articles of charges was framed against the petitioner vide Annexure-7 and the petitioner submitted his written submissions against the said charges vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The matter was enquired into and the petitioner submitted his representations against the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority on 04.12.2015. After conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, basing on the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order, which has been assailed in the writ application. Left with no other alternative, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner in person appeared and submitted that the enquiry report is perverse and the punishment basing on the said enquiry report, cannot be held to be valid. The petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before infliction of punishment and there has been miscarriage of justice, as no second show cause notice was issued prior to infliction of punishment. The petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before infliction of punishment and there has been miscarriage of justice, as no second show cause notice was issued prior to infliction of punishment. The petitioner further submits that the appellate order by the appellate authority is also assailable on the ground that the appellate authority sitting on the judgment of his own order, therefore, the said order passed by the appellate authority is a nullity. The petitioner further submits that he has become a victim of circumstances, as his two years' annual performance and the excellent records have not been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. During pendency of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 6888 of 2016, wherein, it has been communicated that the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 20.05.2016 has been rejected. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1-Union of India, controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been, inter alia, submitted that paragraph 5 of the Enquiry Report gives details of the reasonable opportunity given to the petitioner and full opportunity was therefore provided to the Charged Officer to present his case during the Enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has analyzed and evaluated the Evidences presented during the Enquiry and there is no basis for the petitioner for making unsubstantiated and malicious allegations against the Enquiry Officer. It has further been submitted that the petitioner, who is the Director (Personnel) of Heavy Engineering Corporation (HEC), Ranchi was placed under suspension with immediate effect on 25.07.2014 in terms of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 20 of HEC, CDA, Rules, 1981 for violation of Rule-5 (5), (6) and (20) of the said CDA Rules, 1981 in contemplation of proceeding by the Disciplinary Authority as per Annexure-R/1. It has further been submitted that in terms of Sub Rule 3 of Rule 25 charges were framed and the charges along with statement of allegations, list of documents and the witnesses by whom the Articles of charge are proposed to be sustained was communicated to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 27.02.2015 in terms of the HEC, CDA Rules, 1981. It has further been submitted that in terms of Sub Rule 3 of Rule 25 charges were framed and the charges along with statement of allegations, list of documents and the witnesses by whom the Articles of charge are proposed to be sustained was communicated to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 27.02.2015 in terms of the HEC, CDA Rules, 1981. On receipt of Written Statement of the petitioner vide his letter dated 17.03.2015, it was decided by the Disciplinary Authority to hold an Enquiry in terms of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 25 of the said Rules, 1981. The Additional Secretary, Department of Heavy Industry, was appointed as Enquiry Authority vide order dated 23.04.2015 as evident from Annexure-R/3. After conclusion of the Enquiry, the Enquiry Authority submitted its report dated 18.11.2015, which concluded that the Articles of charge-I, III and IV has been fully proved and the charge contained in Article II of the Memorandum has been partly proved. Vide memorandum dated 19.11.2015 (Annexure V), the petitioner was supplied with a copy of the Inquiry Report with the approval of the Disciplinary Authority giving him the option to submit representation/submission to the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days as per Annexure-R/4. The Inquiry Report dated 18.11.2015 and the written submission/representation of the petitioner dated 04.12.2015 was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and it was decided to impose major penalty, dismissal from services, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or the Corporation/Company owned or controlled by the Government under Rule 23 (i) of the HEC, CDA Rules, 1981 vide order dated 18.04.2016 vide Annexure-R/5. The disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the existing Rules of HEC and it has been decided by the Disciplinary Authority to impose major penalty on the petitioner after proper inquiry, As such, there is no question of violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner. 5. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, who has been arrayed as Respondent by name. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 has referred to paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner has heavily relied upon the document as Annexure-6, which is part of the noting in the official file. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 has referred to paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, wherein, it has been submitted that the petitioner has heavily relied upon the document as Annexure-6, which is part of the noting in the official file. In fact, the aforesaid letter was a document produced by the prosecution which is State Exhibit No. 1 during the enquiry and was confirmed by the deponent during the enquiry which shall be evident from paragraph 7.1 of the enquiry report dated 18.11.2015. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not disclosed any material of any kind supported by any evidence that the answering respondent no. 2 has acted with mala fide intention at all. It is settled law that bare pleading malafide is not enough rather it must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the allegations of malafide made against the answering respondent no. 2 deserves to be rejected. In this respect, the learned senior counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1974 SC 555 and submits that following the aforesaid Apex Court judgment, the writ petition ought to be rejected with heavy cost. 7. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 3, wherein, it has been, inter alia, submitted that the present CMD had written the letters on the basis of records available. It has further been submitted that the then CMD, Sri R. Misra who made the recommendation on 31.12.2014 in favour of petitioner, was also placed under suspension in February, 2014 and subsequently was reinstated as a Charged Officer in November, 2014, writing a letter by Sri R. Misra on 31 December, 2014 to Respondent No. 2 establishes his ill motive as he superannuated on the very day. It has further been submitted that the Inquiry Report dated 18.11.2015 and the written submission/representation of petitioner dated 04.12.2015 was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and it was decided to impose major penalty, removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or the Corporation/Company owned or controlled by the Government under Rule 23 (i) of the HEC, CDA Rules, 1981 vide order dated 18.04.2016. 8. Having heard the petitioner in person and Mr. 8. Having heard the petitioner in person and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned ASGI appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 & 3 as well as Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference, due to the following facts and reasons : - (i) In pursuance to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings under the HEC Employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1981, the statement of Articles of charges were framed against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. After conducting the Enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report, wherein, charge nos. I, III and IV have been fully proved, whereas, charge no. II has been partly proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority after thorough scrutiny of the Enquiry Report and on going through the submissions of the petitioner against the enquiry report, came to the conclusion that the charges of misconduct against the petitioner have been proved. After affording full opportunity as per the procedure at all stages of the Disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority in terms of Rule 23 of the HEC Employees' Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1981, has decided for infliction of major penalty of dismissal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or the Corporation/Company owned or controlled by the Government. During pendency of the writ petition, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected affirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. From the initiation of the departmental proceedings and till its culmination, there appears to have been no procedural infirmities so as to warrant any interference by this Court. The law is well-settled that the High Court has got limited scope for interference to exercise the power of judicial review. (ii) In the case in 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 two consecutive authorities based on the material 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 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 ………” (iii) It is also settled position of law that the High Court under writ jurisdiction cannot re-apprise the evidences led before the enquiry officer and cannot disturb the facts finding given by the disciplinary authority. It is also well-settled that the High Court has limited scope of judicial review in the administrative action in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction and therefore, the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and the consequent order of punishment of removal from services ought not to be disturbed. From the documents on record, it appears that no ground of irrationality or perversity has been shown by the petitioner so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders applying the aforesaid principles of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as indicated hereinabove and the writ petition, sans merit, is hereby dismissed.