JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of dismissal dtd.04.03.2006 and the appellate order dtd.18.2.2010 confirming the order of dismissal. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Sr. Clerk under the District Judge, Balasore, proceeded departmentally vide departmental proceeding No.2 of 1999 and 7 of 2001 for alleged misconduct and of commission of irregularities of inflicting blows on the forehead, chest and cheek of Sri Agasti kumar Sahoo, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jaleswar while he was in chamber causing swelling and bleeding injury on his forehead and thereby he has shown his behavior not to be retained in the service and accordingly a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him, he has participated in the enquiry in which the charge has been proved, which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and thereafter the punishment of dismissal from service has been imposed. The applicant has filed an appeal before the competent appellate committee, the committee has affirmed the order of dismissal against which this writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner while challenging the orders, has taken the ground that he has not been provided with adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard, not been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and not been provided with opportunity of personal hearing before the disciplinary authority before passing the final order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties has defended the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate committee by submitting that the petitioner who was working as Sr. Clerk in the District Court, Balasore under Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class has committed gross irregularities which is very serious in nature, hence a departmental proceeding has been initiated in which the petitioner has been given all opportunities to defend himself. He has participated in the enquiry fully without any compliant. The enquiry officer has found the charges proved against him. The disciplinary authority has accepted the enquiry report, issued second show cause notice and after considering the response of the second show cause, the punishment of dismissal has been passed by the disciplinary authority. He has participated in the enquiry fully without any compliant. The enquiry officer has found the charges proved against him. The disciplinary authority has accepted the enquiry report, issued second show cause notice and after considering the response of the second show cause, the punishment of dismissal has been passed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal by filing an appeal before the standing committee of the Orissa high court, the committee after hearing him, has passed an order affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. It has been submitted that there is no illegality in the order of dismissal, rather all procedure, as has been laid down under the law, has been followed and thereafter considering the gravity of the offence, the order of dismissal has been passed. It has been submitted that jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to reverse the view of the disciplinary authority is very restricted and it can only exercise the power of judicial review if there is miscarriage of justice due to non-observance of principle of natural justice or mala fide, but no such case has been made out by the petitioner. He further submits that there is no provision in the law that before passing the final order, the disciplinary authority shall provide an opportunity of personal hearing. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The petitioner while working as Sr. Clerk has been departmentally proceeded for the following charges:- (i) That you Shri Prahallad Chandra Mallik, while working as Bench Clerk of the Court of J.M.F.C., Jaleswar on 25.07.2001 inflicted fist blows on the forehead, cheek and chest of Shri Agasti Kumar Sahu, J.M.F.C., Jaleswar while he was in his chamber causing swelling and bleeding injuries on his forehead and severe pain on his chest which amounts to gross misconduct. (ii) That you Shri Mallik, also scolded the J.M.F.C. Shri Sahu in discourteous manner and threatened to put an end to his life and declared that nobody would rescue him, resulting in lowering down the prestige of Judiciary as a whole in the public esteem, which is unbecoming on the part of a Government Servant. (ii) That you Shri Mallik, also scolded the J.M.F.C. Shri Sahu in discourteous manner and threatened to put an end to his life and declared that nobody would rescue him, resulting in lowering down the prestige of Judiciary as a whole in the public esteem, which is unbecoming on the part of a Government Servant. The petitioner has been directed to appear before the enquiry officer wherein the deposition has been made by the prosecution witnesses in which P.W.1 the informant and P.W. 2 a peon, have supported the case by specifically stating that P.W.2, after hearing shout in the chamber of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, got into the chamber and found that the hands of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class was on the chest of the delinquent and the delinquent’s fist was near the eyes of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. He also gone to the extent of saying that the delinquent dealt one fist blow on the left eye of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class and thereafter he separated the delinquent from the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class and took the delinquent to the court hall. The enquiry officer has considered the Confidential Letter No.10 dtd.25.07.2001 of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (Ext.1) another confidential letter No.1 dtd.26.07.2001 (Ext.2) of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balasore addressed to the higher authority wherein he has described the entire incident. The enquiry officer has also take note of the F.I.R. which has been instituted by the informant which has been registered and subsequently converted into S.T. Case No.73/166 of 2002. The enquiry officer, on the basis of the deposition made before him, has found the charges proved. We have gathered from the enquiry report that the petitioner has been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses also. The enquiry officer has forwarded the report after proving the charge against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority, after accepting it, has issued the second show cause notice which has well been responded by him, the disciplinary authority after considering the same has passed the order of dismissal. We have also gathered that the enquiry officer has also taken into consideration the additional charges which has duly been defended by the petitioner, thereafter the disciplinary authority has passed order of dismissal vide order dtd.04.03.2006. We have also gathered that the enquiry officer has also taken into consideration the additional charges which has duly been defended by the petitioner, thereafter the disciplinary authority has passed order of dismissal vide order dtd.04.03.2006. The petitioner has approached the appellate committee under the Orissa High Court Rules and the Appellate Committee has disposed of the appeal vide its order dtd.18.2.2010 after taking into consideration the nature of charges and as also the opportunity having been provided to him before the enquiry committee. The appellate committee has also given an opportunity of personal hearing to him. The petitioner is before this court challenging the order of dismissal as well as the order of the appellate committee. We have perused from the record that the nature of charge is very serious. The petitioner has been afforded all opportunities to defend himself. He has been allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the charges as well as addl. charges. The enquiry officer has found the charges proved against him and thereafter the disciplinary authority has accepted the enquiry report and after giving second show cause notice has passed the order of dismissal. The appellate committee has also accorded the opportunity of hearing and after going through the record, has affirmed the order of punishment. 6. There is no dispute about the settled proposition that the High Court, sitting under art.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has got very limited jurisdiction to review the order of punishment under exercise of power conferred under judicial review when there is concurrent finding and the opportunity of hearing has been given, with respect to this proposition reference needs to be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P and Others Vrs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Another, 2006 5 SCC 673 wherein their Lordships have been pleased to hold that (it is settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.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.) In another judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State Bank of Hyderabad and Another Vrs. P.Kata Rao, 2008 15 SCC 657 wherein at para 18 and 19 it has been held as follows:- “18. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of superior courts in interfering with a finding of fact arrived at by the enquiry officer is limited. The High Court, it is trite, would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of punishment. There cannot, furthermore, be any doubt or dispute that only because the delinquent employee who was also facing a criminal charge stands acquitted, the same, by itself, would not debar the disciplinary authority in initiating a fresh departmental proceeding and/or where the departmental proceedings had already been initiated, to continue therewith. 19. We are not unmindful of different principles laid down by this Court from time to time. The approach that the Court’s jurisdiction is unlimited although had not found favour with some Benches, the applicability of the doctrine of proportionality, however, had not been deviated from.” In the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Union of India and Others Vrs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in AIR 2015 SC 545 the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to laid down a guideline in order to make interference with the order of punishment which is being quoted herein below:- “13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No.1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a). The enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b). The enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c). There is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d). The authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e). The authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f). There is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d). The authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e). The authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f). The conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g). The disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h). The disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i). The finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) Re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) Interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in a accordance with law; (iii) Go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) Go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) Interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) Correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) Go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” Thus the settled legal proposition is that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited and the High Court cannot sit as an appellate court and in the recent judgment rendered in case of Union of India Vrs. P. Gunasekaran (supra) it has been held that the High Court can interfere under Article 226 but cannot interfere under Art.226 to re-appreciate the evidence, to interfere with the conclusion in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law, go into the adequacy of the evidence, go into the reliability of the evidence, interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based, correct the errors of fact however grave it may appear to be, go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience and the High Court can only see whether the enquiry held by competent authority or the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed or there is violation of principle of natural justice in conducting the proceeding, the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some consideration extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous consideration, the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion, the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence, the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding and the finding of fact based on no evidence. 7. In view of the settled proposition of law as has been referred herein above the guide line has been formulated warranting interference by the High Courts sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, according to our conscious view, no such ground is available in the facts and circumstances of the instant case since the enquiry officer has given its finding on the basis of the deposition laid down before it by the witnesses who has been cross-examined by the delinquent and also on the basis of the exhibits produced before it. 8. 8. Contention has been raised by the petitioner that since he has been acquitted in the criminal case, hence the order of dismissal be recalled, but that can also not be considered by this court for the reason that the Departmental proceeding and criminal prosecution stands on different footing while the criminal prosecution stands on the charge to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt while the departmental proceeding requires to be seen on the basis of preponderance of probability, here in the instant case sufficient evidence has come before the enquiry officer leading to dismissal of the petitioner from service and as such merely on the ground of acquittal in the criminal case the petitioner cannot derive any benefit. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District and Sessions Judge, Balasore has not given the opportunity of personal hearing although date has been fixed for personal hearing, as such the entire enquiry is vitiated in the eye of law. This argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to us for the reason that nowhere from the record it is found that the District and Sessions Judge, Balasore has not provided opportunity of hearing, since no document has been placed to substantiate this stand, otherwise also the petitioner has been provided opportunity of personal hearing before the enquiry officer as also before the appellate committee, as such no prejudice is said to be caused to him. Further, even if assuming that the District and Sessions Judge, Balasore has not provided opportunity of personal hearing, but on this ground also the entire proceeding cannot said to be vitiated in the eye of law, since the petitioner has not made out his case as to how it has prejudiced his case, rather it is settled that without any pleading to that effect, the entire departmental proceeding cannot be vitiated in the eye of law. 10. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter and considering the facts stated herein above, we are of the considered view that the orders impugned suffer from no infirmity, hence we are not inclined to interfere with the same, in the result the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.