JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 19.07.2011 whereby petitioner has been terminated from services and for quashing order dated 20.09.2008 passed by Enquiry Officer whereby charge nos. 1 to 7 framed against the petitioner have been completely proved and charge no. 9 has been partly proved. 2. The facts, giving rise to filing of the present writ application, is that petitioner was appointed on 31.05.1994 in the post of Panchayat Sevak. While continuing as such, charge-sheet containing 9 charges at Prapatra-K was served upon the petitioner mainly on the ground that his service while being In-charge of Matiyani Panchayat was found unsatisfactory and due to that the work under NREGA has been effected. Accordingly, departmental proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner, in which, conducting officer was appointed, who after enquiry submitted his report and basing on such enquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the order of termination, which is impugned before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has not been given show cause prior to submission of charge-sheet. It has been submitted that neither any information of the enquiry nor enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and without giving any enquiry report or show cause aforesaid charge has been framed, moreover, the documents on the basis of which charge-sheet has been submitted have also not been incorporated by the authority, hence, the impugned order is required to be quashed. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a judgment rendered in the case of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr Vs.Madanlal Tandon as reported in (2015) 8 SCC 461 . It has further been submitted that the conducting officer without any evidence and without giving any proper opportunity to defend the charges submitted its report on 20.09.2008 on the basis of which the disciplinary authority issued second show cause, to which, the petitioner replied. But without appreciating the entire facts, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of termination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination was passed without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and without supplying the necessary papers. But without appreciating the entire facts, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of termination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination was passed without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and without supplying the necessary papers. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Conducting Officer without verifying the relevant documents and only on the basis of surmises and conjectures have come to an erroneous conclusion that charge nos. 1 to 7 levelled against the petitioner is fully proved and charge no. 9 has been partially proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that witnesses examined by the B.D.O were never examined by the Enquiry Officer, hence, for non-examination of the material witness, the impugned order is vulnerable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the conducting officer has violated the Rule 116, 166 and 167 (b) of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules. It has further been submitted that the Block Development Officer in order to save his skin has thrown responsibility upon the petitioner as issuing rice from the store sanction of BDO is essential, which has not been done. On the question of quantum of punishment, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order of termination is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 4. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner had committed serious irregularities in discharging his duties, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and explanation was sought for from the petitioner, but, it is the petitioner who did not opt to submit reply to the said explanation. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that enquiry and examination of works were done in presence of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that enquiry report was sent along with second show cause notice vide memo dated 29.01.2009 and in response thereof the petitioner submitted his reply which was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and accordingly impugned order of termination was passed. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length 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 for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:- (i). Mainly on the charge of defalcation of money, non-implementation of Govt. 5. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at length 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 for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:- (i). Mainly on the charge of defalcation of money, non-implementation of Govt. Schemes mainly NREGA work and for disobedience, total 09 charges in Form-K was framed against the petitioner, which was thoroughly enquired by the conducting officer. The enquiry officer after thorough enquiry found charge nos. 1 to 7 levelled against the petitioner fully proved and charge no. 9 has been partially proved. (ii). From perusal of record, it appears that enquiry report has been supplied with second show cause notice and further, the petitioner has failed to establish the fact what prejudice has been caused for any such procedural irregularity. In the counter affidavit it is also averred that enquiry and examination of the works were done in presence of the petitioner and he was acquainted with the enquiry and examinations of his works, hence, the petitioner now cannot claim that the enquiry has been done behind his back. (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 ………” 6. 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. 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 does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition, sans merits, is dismissed.