JUDGMENT : PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the Notification dated 06.11.2008 pertaining to imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement. 2. Heard Mr. Nilendu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Himanshu Kumar Mehta, learned A.A.G. appearing for the Respondent-State. 3. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ petition is that initially the petitioner was appointed, as a Junior Engineer in the year 1971. Subsequently, in course of time, he was promoted to the post of the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer. When the deputation of Ms. Salesta Barla, Typist was cancelled, the said Ms.Salesta Barla in collusion with Md. Kamar Mahmood, the Executive Engineer, Planning and Monitoring Division, Ranchi has hatched up a conspiracy to rope in the petitioner. Accordingly, she lodged a complaint before the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Ranchi on 22.03.2002 vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has been averred that since the petitioner being the Controlling Officer of Md. Kamar Mahmood asked him to show cause with regard to withdrawal of huge amount from the Treasury in gross violation of Rule and the said Md. Kamar Mahmood insisted Ms. Salesta Barla to lodge a fabricated complaint against the petitioner and the explanation was called for from the petitioner on the said allegations. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the said allegations, but, without considering the explanation of the petitioner, a Joint Fact Finding Committee was constituted to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner and the said Committee submitted report only on the basis of the statement of Md. Kamar Mahmood against whom the petitioner reported for initiation of the departmental proceedings and the Joint Committee also did not find the petitioner to be guilty of the allegations. On the basis of the said report, the petitioner was dismissed from the services vide order dated 27.07.2004 and being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 4636 of 2004 and this Court vide order dated 20.07.2005 has been pleased to set aside the order of dismissal and accordingly, the writ petition was allowed with liberty to the respondents to proceed with the same in accordance with law. Thereafter, the matter was taken up afresh and an enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and basing on the enquiry report and reply to the second show cause vide Notification dated 06.11.2008, punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon the petitioner vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment vide Annexure-10, the petitioner, left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has submitted with vehemence that the impugned order vide Annexure-10 is fraught with illegality since the complainant had not been examined, therefore, from perusal of the enquiry report, it would appear that the principles of natural justice has been violated. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision reported in (2003) 3 SCC 633 , paragraph 3. Learned counsel further submits that the second enquiry, which has been conducted by the respondents, has been conducted in clear violation of Rule 55 of the CCS Rules. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order of “Compulsory Retirement” can not be justified on the ground that the enquiry report does not give definite finding regarding the culpability of the petitioner so far as charges levelled against him, is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the impugned order of punishment is excessive and grossly disproportionate to the proven charges. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the assertions made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner for the charge of committing “Indecent behaviour and sexual harassment against a women employee” vide Departmental notification no. 2911 dated 10.09.2002. In this regard, a charge sheet was submitted and the enquiry officer has been appointed. The Department reviewed the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and awarded punishment of “dismissal from service” vide notification no. 2911 dated 10.09.2002. In this regard, a charge sheet was submitted and the enquiry officer has been appointed. The Department reviewed the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and awarded punishment of “dismissal from service” vide notification no. 2074 dated 27.07.2004 and the said punishment was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 4636 of 2004 and vide order dated 20.07.2005, this Court has been pleased to quash the punishment order of dismissal from service and liberty was given to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law by following the principles of natural justice. It has been further submitted that in compliance to the order of this Court, the department withdrew the punishment of dismissal. The Water Resources Department initiated departmental proceeding afresh in the light of the aforesaid judgment vide memo dated 23.02.2006 and the Secretary of the Science and Technology Department was appointed as the Conducting Officer. After giving opportunity of hearing, the Conducting Officer submitted her enquiry report vide letter dated 30.12.2006. The Conducting officer clearly stated in the enquiry report that the charge levelled against the petitioner has been proved. The Conducting officer found the petitioner guilty for sexual harassment against a women employee, namely, Ms.Salesta Barla. The Conducting Officer observed that the conduct of the petitioner was not in accordance with the code of conduct of Government employees. The Department reviewed the enquiry report and decided to award punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” to the petitioner. The petitioner was served copy of the enquiry report and he has also been informed about the decision of the Department regarding punishment vide memo dated 17.04.2008 and he was also asked to submit second show cause and the petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice before the Department. After consideration of the reply to the second show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, the department decided to award punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” and the matter was put up before the State Cabinet. The Cabinet accorded its approval on 16.10.2008 and thereafter, the impugned Notification dated 06.11.2008 has been issued awarding punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” to the petitioner. 6. Ms. The Cabinet accorded its approval on 16.10.2008 and thereafter, the impugned Notification dated 06.11.2008 has been issued awarding punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” to the petitioner. 6. Ms. Kanchan Kumari, learned J.C. to A.A.G. appearing for the Respondent-State by reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit, has submitted that the impugned order of punishment has been passed after following the principles of natural justice and the punishment imposed on the petitioner does not appear to the disproportionate so as to warrant interference by this Court. 7. After giving my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions and on perusal of the records, I am of the considered opinion, that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference due to the following facts and reasons : - (i) In the case on hand, after disposal of the earlier writ application, W.P. (S) No. W.P. (S) No. 4636 of 2004, vide order dated 20.07.2005, the disciplinary proceeding was taken up afresh. The Disciplinary Authority has followed all the procedural paraphernalia during the disciplinary proceedings. Hence, there has been no procedural irregularity from the initiation of proceedings till imposition of punishment. On that score, this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to exercise the judicial review so far as procedural irregularity in the departmental proceeding is concerned. (ii) So far as the challenge thrown by the petitioner to the punishment on the anvil of doctrine of proportionality, the same, considering the findings of the enquiry report does not appear to be excessive so as to prick the conscience of this Court. 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and as a logical sequitor to the aforesaid premises, the impugned Notification dated-06.11.2008, relating to punishment of “Compulsory Retirement”, does not warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly, the writ petitioner stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.