JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 18.09.2009 whereby punishment of compulsory retirement has been passed against the petitioner; and for quashing order dated 28.06.2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, is that while the petitioner was posted in Dhanbad, charges were framed against him vide order dated 26.03.2008 to the effect that: (a). On 18.03.2008, in front of Dhanbad Police Station at a public place, the petitioner along with one of his friends, namely, M.P. Sinha was shouting that the then S.P., Dhanbad is not posting him, he will not leave him and he was abusing the then S.P., Dhanbad publicly; (b). Against the order of police headquarters for not giving any statement before the media, the petitioner made his statement before the reporter of print and electronic media that in spite of giving Rs. Five lakhs, the then S.P., Dhanbad was not posting him in Mythan Police Station and further alleged that the then S.P., Dhanbad has also assaulted him. Basing on these charges, show cause was asked from the petitioner, to which, he replied denying all the allegations levelled against him. Being dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, which led to passing of impugned order 18.09.2009, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal, which stood rejected vide order dated 28.06.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since his appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1985, the petitioner worked to the best of his ability and because of his candid approach, the petitioner was elected as Secretary of the Police Association Dhanbad and in that capacity, he highlighted some of the misdeeds and illegal activities of the Superintendent of Police. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that due to extreme torture by the then Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, the petitioner had filed complaint case against him and for this reason by various means, they tried to put pressure upon the petitioner to withdraw the case, which the petitioner did not resulting into initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that due to extreme torture by the then Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad, the petitioner had filed complaint case against him and for this reason by various means, they tried to put pressure upon the petitioner to withdraw the case, which the petitioner did not resulting into initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner became the victim of rival factions of the association. Actual fact is that while the petitioner was posted at Police Control (PCR), Dhanbad, the petitioner visited the residential office of S.P., Dhanbad on 18.03.2008 where he was assaulted by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad and their officials but contrary to it Station Diary Entry No. 615 was lodged against the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has also filed a criminal case being Cr. Revision No. 103 of 2010 against the then Superintendent of Police and others for alleged assault upon him and has filed another complaint no. 1559 of 2010 in relation to forged entry dated 18.03.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner's witness was also abducted by the police officials in canteen, which was published in Hindi daily newspaper 'Hindustan” dated 29.03.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned orders mainly on the following grounds: (i). That the departmental proceeding was held ex-parte and petitioner was not served with the copy of enquiry report, which he got after issuance of impugned order under R.T.I Act. From perusal of enquiry report, it is crystal clear that Superintendent of Police, Chatra has been made controlling officer and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sindri was made the enquiry officer, who is immediate sub-ordinate to erstwhile Superintendent of Police, with whom, dispute arose with the petitioner. Furthermore, the inquiry was not fair, which fact gets strengthened by report made by I.G., Police Headquarter dated 28.06.2011. (ii). That, petitioner was not supplied relevant documents i.e. charge memo, exhibits and evidence of witnesses, and further no opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses was afforded and their statements have been taken behind the back of the petitioner and petitioner was not served a second show cause notice before infliction of major punishment; which has caused serious prejudice to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner had even made a complaint regarding non-supply of relevant documents by the inquiry officer before D.I.G., Bokaro on 18.05.2009 but the same did not evoke any response. (iii). Referring to Rule 116 (Ga) of the Police Manual, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that entries in the Station Diary has been made in contravention of the said Rule as the complainant was not present on the date and time of occurrence. (iv). That impugned punishment has been awarded in utter violation of Rule 826 of the Police Manual, as from bare perusal of inquiry report, it appears that the conducting officer has taken into record the previous service record of the petitioner while determining the quantum of punishment though the same was not mentioned in the Charge. (v). That the enquiry officer has exceeded his jurisdiction as he has recommended for a particular punishment to be imposed upon the petitioner, which shows that he was per-determined to punish the petitioner. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred following judgments as rendered in the case of:- (a). State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Sharif as reported in AIR 1982 SC 937 (b). Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors as reported in AIR 2000 SC 277 . (c). Moni Shankar Vs. Union of India & Anr as reported in 2008(3)PLJR 292(SC) (d). State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chintaman, Sadashiva Waishampayan as reported in AIR 1961 SC1623. (e). State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha as reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 . (f). Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. as reported in (1983) 2 SCC 442 . (g). Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. Karunakar as reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . 5. Controverting the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted with vehemence that it is neither a case where there is any procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental in culmination of impugned order nor the impugned punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges. It has been submitted that on the alleged charges, a thorough departmental proceeding was initiated, in which, S.D.P.O, Sindri was made conducting officer, who during enquiry examined 10 witnesses apart from press reporters of Hindustan and Prabhat Khabar. 6. It has been submitted that on the alleged charges, a thorough departmental proceeding was initiated, in which, S.D.P.O, Sindri was made conducting officer, who during enquiry examined 10 witnesses apart from press reporters of Hindustan and Prabhat Khabar. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that on perusal of page 6 of the enquiry report, it is apparent that notices were served upon the petitioner through her wife, daughter and brother on different dates and the petitioner, himself has received the notice vide memo dated 25.12.2008 and 31.12.2008 and even on 31.12.2008 intimated that he is suffering from cold, hence, he is unable to participate in the departmental proceeding. On 08.01.2009, the petitioner made request for supply of charge-sheet and other exhibits, which was handed over to him on the same day. But, in spite of taking such documents, when the petitioner did not appear, the enquiry officer once again vide memo dated 08.01.2009 intimated the petitioner to appear on 14.01.2009 and again on 15.01.2009. But despite having full knowledge about the departmental proceedings, he intentionally did not participate in the same and avoided his presence in the departmental proceeding. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the enquiry report has been served upon the petitioner by the then Deputy Inspector General of Police, who was the disciplinary authority in this case vide memo dated 16.05.2009 and after getting the same, the petitioner submitted reply before Deputy Inspector General of Police as such plea of the petitioner that he has not been served with the enquiry report before infliction of impugned punishment gets falsified. 8. So far as issuance of second show cause notice is concerned, it is well settled law that it is only required when the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has filed the criminal case and complaint case only to save his skin in the departmental proceeding. Actual fact is that during the course of departmental proceeding, the petitioner could not attend the enquiry proceeding as he was apprehending his arrest in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 189 of 2008 and C.P. Case No. 1436 of 2004 and in those cases though he got relief on 22.04.2008 and 15.12.2008 respectively and even then also he did not appear before the enquiry officer. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has a bad service record, as in his service tenure he has been awarded several minor and major punishments. 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the submissions made at Bar and on perusal of record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference due to following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I). Admittedly, in the instant case the charges levelled against the petitioner was grave in nature. On perusal of the said charges it smacks of insubordination and indiscipline committed by an employee of disciplined force. The charges have been duly enquired into and the conducting officer after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner has found the charges to be proved. Though, the petitioner has tried to make out a case that the copy of the enquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioner and further prejudicial documents have not been supplied to the petitioner, but from the averments made in the counter affidavit, such claim of the petitioner gets falsified and it appears that the enquiry report has been supplied to the petitioner at later stage and ultimately the disciplinary authority on the basis of proved misconduct, as evidenced in the enquiry report, has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority. Hence, from the initiation of departmental proceeding till its culmination no such procedural irregularities have been committed so as to warrant interference by this Court. (ii). From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the previous misconduct has been taken note of while passing the impugned order, to which, learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously objected to stating that since the previous misconduct was not part of the charge, the same ought not to have been weighed while passing impugned order. In this regard, it would be profitable to reiterate the view taken by Hon'ble Apex in the case of Union of India & ors. Vs. In this regard, it would be profitable to reiterate the view taken by Hon'ble Apex in the case of Union of India & ors. Vs. Bishamber Das Dogra as reported in (2009) 13 SCC 102 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court after discussing catena of judgments on the issue involved has held that even in absence of statutory rules disciplinary authority may take into consideration the past conduct/service of the delinquent while for adding weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require. For better appreciation, relevant paragraph 28 and 30 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: 28. In Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Taher Ali { (2007) 8 SCC 656 } this Court rejected the contention that unless the past conduct is a part of charge-sheet, it cannot be taken into consideration while imposing the punishment observing that: “5. ...there can be no hard-and-fast rule that merely because the earlier misconduct has not been mentioned in the charge-sheet it cannot be taken into consideration by the punishing authority. Consideration of the earlier misconduct is often [necessary] only to reinforce the opinion of the said authority.” (emphasis supplied) In fact Taher Ali case the argument had been advanced that if the disciplinary authority wanted to consider the past service record of the employee, it should be a part of the charge-sheet. Though in K. Manche Gowde { AIR 1964 SC 506 this Court said that it should be so indicated in the second show cause notice only for the purpose of imposing punishment. Thus it is not necessary that it should be part of the charge-sheet. 30. ........…... But in the case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in the absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment if the facts of the case so require. (iii). Moreover, in view of the seriousness of allegation and misconduct committed by the petitioner, the power of judicial review cannot be applied and the fact finding given by the enquiry officer 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 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 ………” 10. Viewed thus, the case at hand does not present special features warranting any interference by the Court in limited exercise of its powers of judicial review. In such a fact situation, I am of the considered opinion that impugned orders do not call for any interference with the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition, sans merits, is dismissed.