JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 19.08.2007 whereby petitioner has been terminated from services. 2. The facts, in brief, is that on the allegation that petitioner was found absent from duty while he was posted at Dumka to maintain law and order in Holi Festival. Based on such allegation, a charge was framed against the petitioner and Departmental Proceeding No. 69 of 1992 was initiated against the petitioner, which culminated in passing of order of dismissal of the petitioner from services by disciplinary authority-Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur vide order dated 19.02.2002 and in the light of that order of dismissal, the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad dismissed the petitioner from services. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred appeal which was disposed of vide order dated 19.08.2007, which is impugned in this case. However, before preferring appeal, the petitioner has also approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 469 of 2003, which was allowed vide order dated 25.03.2003 with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire departmental proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularity as the petitioner has neither been provided copy of charge-sheet nor he was afforded proper opportunity of hearing and he was never allowed to appear before enquiry officer to produce any relevant document or evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the matter, which was set at rest for the last one decade has been re-opened, which is designed to harass the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the said appeal though the petitioner raised all relevant points but without appreciating the points put forth by the petitioner, the appellate authority out-rightly rejected the appeal. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Diwakar Giri Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors as reported in 2007 (1) JCR 412 ; Ashok Chandra Deogharia Vs. Ranchi-Khunti Central Co-operative Bank Ltd & Ors as reported in 2005 JLJR (2) 492; Terres Ekka Vs State of Jharkhand as reported in (2007) 2 JLJR 41 ; Shri Bhagan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors as reported in (2004)4 SCC 560 . 4. Ranchi-Khunti Central Co-operative Bank Ltd & Ors as reported in 2005 JLJR (2) 492; Terres Ekka Vs State of Jharkhand as reported in (2007) 2 JLJR 41 ; Shri Bhagan Lal Arya Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Ors as reported in (2004)4 SCC 560 . 4. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted from plain reading of impugned order dated 19.08.2007, it would appear that in a short period of service, four times the petitioner remained absent from duty for a long period of time and it has become his habit to remain absent for one pretext or other. It has further been submitted that appellate authority after taking all points raised by the petitioner; materials available on record and taking into consideration the points raised by the petitioner, passed the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court. 5. From perusal of record, it appears that initially for remaining absent from duty without any information from 18.03.1992 to 25.11.1994, a departmental proceeding no. 69 of 1992 was initiated against the petitioner, which culminated in passing of order of dismissal from services vide order dated 19.02.2002. Being aggrieved, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 469 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 25.3.2003. From plain reading of order dated 25.3.2003, it appears that the Writ Court mainly on territorial jurisdiction allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order observing that it appears that the petitioner was transferred in territory of State of Jharkhand on 10.07.2000 and since then he is serving in the district of Dhanbad. But, in spite of creation of State of Jharkhand, the said departmental proceeding which was initiated in 1992 was continued by the authorities of State of Bihar and final order was passed by the State of Bihar, which is beyond jurisdiction as the State of Bihar has no jurisdiction to dismiss a person holding post in the State of Jharkhand. However, liberty was given to the respondents-State of Jharkhand to proceed departmentally against the petitioner in accordance with law. Hence, on merit of the case, the petitioner cannot draw any benefit from the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 469 of 2003 as the same was allowed on technical ground. 6. However, liberty was given to the respondents-State of Jharkhand to proceed departmentally against the petitioner in accordance with law. Hence, on merit of the case, the petitioner cannot draw any benefit from the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 469 of 2003 as the same was allowed on technical ground. 6. From perusal, it further appears that in compliance of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 469 of 2003, the petitioner was reinstated in services. But, another departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by which, the petitioner was dismissed from services vide order dated 2.6.2003. Being aggrieved, the petitioner again knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 5747 of 2003, which was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file appeal, which the petitioner filed, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 19.08.2007, which is impugned in this case. 7. From perusal of impugned order, it appears that in the appeal every opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend his case and points raised by the petitioner has been taken into consideration and the appellate authority considering the fact that in a short span of service the petitioner absented himself for four times without any information and absenteeism has now become his habit, rejected the appeal. 8. In the case at 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 findings given by the enquiry officer based upon the materials on record cannot be interfered with, as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Another as reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 . From perusal of record, it further appears that there is no such procedural irregularity so as to prick the conscience of Court, hence, the only question which falls for consideration before this Court is as to whether the punishment awarded is commensurate with the gravity of charge or not. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Others as reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 has held that the Court will not interfere with the order, unless the punishment order is one which shocks the conscience of the Court. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Others as reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 has held that the Court will not interfere with the order, unless the punishment order is one which shocks the conscience of the Court. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma as reported in (2005) 3 SCC 401 . 10. Applying the aforesaid principles of Hon'ble Apex Court, as indicated herein above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.