JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the order of punishment dated 15.03.2014 (Annexure-11), passed in Departmental Proceeding No. 5/2012, whereby punishment of “compulsory retirement” has been imposed on the petitioner, as well as, no salary except the salary given during the period of suspension is to be given to the petitioner. Further direction has been issued to delete the name of the petitioner from the entire registers of the official records. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 30.04.2014 (Annexure-13) confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to the respondents to immediately reinstate the petitioner to the post of Constable (Hawaldar) and to pay the entire salary for the period, during which, he was kept out of service and for declaring the action of the respondents illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 2. he facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that while the petitioner was working as Constable under the Jharkhand Armed Police, 10, Mahila Bataliyan, Ranchi, a complaint was made against him by one Hari Lal Rana along with 28 others, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner has taken Rs.7,00,000/- in the name of providing employment to the aforesaid complainants in different posts under the Jharkhand Armed Police. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, the petitioner was immediately suspended vide order dated 10.09.2011 and a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent, Jharkhand Armed Police and in the report dated 02.02.2012 has been submitted against the petitioner and he was further asked to file his reply to the aforesaid charges. The petitioner vide his letter dated 28.02.2012, submitted his reply denying the charges. A departmental proceeding No. 5 of 2012 has been initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was given opportunity to appear and defend himself in the departmental proceeding. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and controverted the entire allegations by stating that he does not know any of the complainants including Hari Lal Rana. A departmental proceeding No. 5 of 2012 has been initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was given opportunity to appear and defend himself in the departmental proceeding. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer and controverted the entire allegations by stating that he does not know any of the complainants including Hari Lal Rana. The petitioner further stated that the said Hari Lal Rana may have given money to one Rahul Mehra as well as to one P.K. Singh i.e. (as stated by Hari Lal Rana), who have no concern with the petitioner and the petitioner is nowhere related to the aforesaid complaints in any manner whatsoever. So far as the Mobile nos. 8298038238 and 9905141149 as indicated by the complainants are concerned, out of aforesaid two Mobile nos., one belongs to the petitioner, but, it could not be corroborated/established with any cogent evidence that the complainant, Hari Lal Rana has ever talked to the petitioner, therefore, merely because the complainant Hari Lal Rana has the Mobile number of the petitioner, the same is not sufficient itself to establish that the petitioner is linked to the complainant in any manner or has not committed any illegality, as alleged against him but the petitioner states that he again filed a detailed reply controverting the entire charges against him vide letter dated 15.03.2012. The Enquiry Officer submitted report and on the basis of the aforesaid findings of the conducting officer, the disciplinary Authority has been pleased to impose a punishment vide Memo dated 26.05.2012 of compulsory retirement along with deletion of the name of the petitioner from the entire registers of the official records of Jharkhand Armed Police and has also been directed that the petitioner is not entitled for save and except the amount of salary received by him during the period of suspension. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Jharkhand Armed Police vide his memo of appeal, dated 06.08.2012 and the said appeal has been rejected vide Memo dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure-8). Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Jharkhand Armed Police vide his memo of appeal, dated 06.08.2012 and the said appeal has been rejected vide Memo dated 10.10.2012 (Annexure-8). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 7622 of 2012 challenging the appellate order as well as the impugned order of punishment and the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 12.11.2013 and the matter has been remitted to the disciplinary authority for fresh decision from the stage of serving the copy of the inquiry report and the second show cause. Thereafter, the second show cause notice along with the inquiry report was given to the petitioner and accordingly, he submitted his reply and after considering all the facts, the respondents again issued the order of compulsory retirement vide Memo No. 714, dated 15.03.2014 (Annexure-11). Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner again preferred appeal on 27.03.2014 and raised all the points but the same has not been considered and the appeal has been rejected vide Memo dated 30.04.2014 (Annexure-13). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted with vehemence that the entire departmental proceeding has been conducted in a perfunctory manner, since out of 28 persons, who complained, only 14 persons were examined and none of them have supported the case of the petitioner saying that the petitioner has taken money, but the respondents authority on the basis of suspicion, as transpired from the enquiry report itself, has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been said to be proved, therefore, the action of the respondents in inflicting the punishment vide Annexure-11 in the absence of any concrete evidence amounts to colourable exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the disciplinary authority in imposing punishment of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate to the magnitude of charge as none of the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and all are based on mere surmises and conjectures. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2002) 7 SCC 142 para 7. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2002) 7 SCC 142 para 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the disciplinary authority by taking into consideration the past records of the petitioner, has passed the impugned order of punishment. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2010) 11 SCC 278 , para 22, 23 and 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellate authority without applying his judicious mind, rejected the appeal without any cogent reasons. Had the appellate authority applied his mind and appreciated the facts and evidences adduced by the petitioner in its right perspective afresh, then he would certainly either have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has wrongly been held guilty in the instant case and he would have exonerated the petitioner from all charges but the appellate authority did not chose to go into the practical aspects of the allegations as well as the allegations in itself are controversial to each other. On bare perusal of the enquiry report of the conducting Officer as well as the complaint, it would be amply clear that the charges revolves around one Rahul Mehra and other one P.K. Singh, but without ascertaining about the genuineness of the said allegations, the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority have erred in law by punishing the petitioner for the alleged misconduct in the pseudo name of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner by assailing the impugned order passed by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority being cryptic and non-reasoned, has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713 , paragraphs 33, 35 and 36. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it has been submitted that as per the complaint made by one Hari Lal Rana on 06.09.2011. The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi appointed the Enquiry Officer (Deputy Superintendent of Police, JAP) for preliminary enquiry and the Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence as well as statements adduced by the different complainants, held the petitioner guilty. The Commandant, Jharkhand Armed Police, Ranchi appointed the Enquiry Officer (Deputy Superintendent of Police, JAP) for preliminary enquiry and the Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence as well as statements adduced by the different complainants, held the petitioner guilty. It has further been stated that the authority enquired from the Reliance Communication Limited about the details of the subscriber of SIM No. 9905141149 and the Reliance Communication Limited had provided details of subscriber of the said SIM No. 9905141149 vide letter dated 27.12.2011 and as per the details, the same has been related to the petitioner as evident from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The Disciplinary Authority has issued charge against the petitioner vide memo dated 14.02.2012 and served to the petitioner. The Conducting officer issued letter No.106 dated 06.03.2012 to the petitioner and asked first explanation from the petitioner. The Conducting Officer issued letter dated 20.03.2012 for collecting evidence and it was informed to the petitioner as well as witnesses as evident from Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. The complainant and some other complainants were present before the Conducting Officer and the petitioner was also present there. The Conducting Officer also provided opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and the copy of the deposition has been received by the petitioner as per Annexure-F to the counter affidavit. The Conducting Officer in his conclusion found the petitioner guilty vide his report dated 10.05.2012 and accordingly, the impugned order by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority has been passed. It has further been stated that in pursuance to the direction of the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 12.11.2013 passed in the writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 7622 of 2012 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for conducting the enquiry from the stage of serving the copy of the enquiry report and the second show cause. Accordingly, the respondents by applying the direction of the Hon'ble Court and after considering the entire evidences on records, passed the reasoned order dated 15.03.2014, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.04.2014 (vide Annexure-13 to the writ petition). 5. Accordingly, the respondents by applying the direction of the Hon'ble Court and after considering the entire evidences on records, passed the reasoned order dated 15.03.2014, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.04.2014 (vide Annexure-13 to the writ petition). 5. The learned counsel for the Respondent-State by referring to the Enquiry Report to Annexure-6 to the writ petition, has submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer clearly indicates the preponderance of probability on the part of the petitioner to have been involved in the aforesaid allegations. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State further submits that considering the gravity of charges and the involvement of the petitioner in the said charges, just punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Respondent-State has referred to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) (2015) 2 SCC 610 and (ii) (2013) 6 SCC 530 & 602. 6. After giving my anxious consideration to the submissions at the bar and on perusal of the relevant records, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of punishment being affirmed by the appellate authority, do not suffer from any vice of violation of the principles of natural justice or the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority being confirmed by the appellate authority, are based on no evidence. The law in respect of conduct of disciplinary proceeding is well-settled. At a departmental proceeding, the points of interference under Article 226 of writ jurisdiction, is limited to the extent that if there is any procedural irregularities from the date of initiation of proceeding till its culmination or the proceeding is based upon no evidence. None of the aforesaid conditions exists to warrant interference in the impugned orders of punishment. On perusal of the impugned order of punishment by the disciplinary authority, dated 15.03.2014 vide Annexure-11 and the order passed by the appellate authority vide Annexure-13, dated 30.04.2014, it appears that the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority have considered the entire gamuts of facts coupled with the findings of the Enquiry Conducting Officers and have passed the orders of punishment vis-a-vis findings regarding culpability of the petitioner. The respondents-authorities have passed the orders of punishment of compulsory retirement, which on the facts and circumstances, do not appear to be excessive or disproportionate so as to prick the conscience of the Court and hence, the same do not call for any interference. As a logical sequitor to the aforesaid reasoning and judicial pronouncements, the impugned order of punishment dated 15.03.2014 (Annexure-11) and the order dated 30.04.2014 vide Annexure-13 do not warrant interference. 7.Accordingly, the writ petition, sans merit, is dismissed.