JUDGMENT : The petitioner, when suffered punishment of dismissal from service approached the appellate-authority which has also dismissed his appeal, has now approached this Court. 2. The petitioner while posted in the court of Munsif as Peon was served a charge-memo in which six distinct charges were framed against him; (i) he has remained absent from duty still he put his signature in the attendance register, (ii) he was working as land-broker, (iii) he occupied a Government quarter in which he made illegal constructions due to which the allotment was cancelled, (iv) he did not inform the Department about several cases pending against him, (v) he had opened several bank accounts in several banks about which he did not inform the Department, and (vi) his conduct amounts to gross negligence, dereliction of duty and misconduct. During the enquiry four witnesses were examined by the Department, but no document was produced by the Department. The disciplinary authority by an order dated 06.05.2013 ordered for further enquiry in the matter. The enquiry report dated 29.09.2014 in Departmental Proceeding No.3/2007 and No.3(A)/2007 concluded with the finding that the charge of not furnishing correct income-tax return was not proved and on the charge that the delinquent was working as land-broker he was extended benefit of doubt. Other charges as framed against the petitioner were found proved. The disciplinary-authority by an order dated 08.01.2015 has imposed punishment of dismissal from service. The appellate authority-Standing Committee of the High Court of Jharkhand has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3. Contending that once major charges such as working as land-broker and not furnishing correct income-tax returns have not been found proved, Mr. Sarju Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges framed and found proved against the petitioner. 4. On admitted facts, the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted observing the rules of natural justice and it is not the case pleaded by the petitioner that the punishment has been imposed contrary to the conduct rules. Sufficiency of evidence is not a ground on which an order of punishment can be interfered [“State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Chitra Venkata Rao” reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 ]. As many as four charges framed against the petitioner which are of serious nature have been found proved during the departmental enquiry. Sufficiency of evidence is not a ground on which an order of punishment can be interfered [“State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. vs. Chitra Venkata Rao” reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 ]. As many as four charges framed against the petitioner which are of serious nature have been found proved during the departmental enquiry. On the basis of the enquiry report and the materials produced during the enquiry the departmental authorities have imposed punishment of dismissal from service. Position in law on quantum of punishment is that, a decision on quantum of punishment rests exclusively with the departmental authorities and the Court can interfere in the matter only when it is found that the punishment imposed upon the delinquent is so disproportionate to the charges framed and found proved that it shocks the conscience of the Court. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and the materials on record, I find no infirmity in the order of dismissal from service. 5. In the above facts, finding no ground to interfere in the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.