JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 30.01.2006 whereby punishment of reduction to lower post, grade and pay-scale has been awarded by the disciplinary authority and further for quashing appellate order dated 29.12.2006 whereby order passed by the disciplinary authority has been modified and for direction upon the respondents to pay all the legal dues and consequential reitral benefits. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that on certain charges, 'Statement of Article of Charges' as under, was framed against the petitioner: “It has been reported that on 25.05.2005, Late Md. R. Mustafa, Assistant Staff no. 397506, posted in the office of GM (MS) was deputed by Shri EVP Choudhary for exploring the repair agency of Xerox Machine and obtaining quotations. It has been further reported that Late Md. R Mustafa had no knowledge regarding the repairing firms of Xerox Machine and did not have the requisite skill for such jobs nor he was supposed to be deputed for such jobs. Further, no prior permission of GM (MS) was taken before deputing Late Md. R. Mustafa for the said job as he was not reporting to him, thereby he was directed to do the job without permission of the appropriate authority. Late Md. R. Mustafa would not have met with the tragic end had he not been deputed for performing an unauthorized job. Further Shri Choudhary had filled-up the “Intimation of Accident (Outside Plant) – Annexure-1” without ascertaining the basic facts of the accident namely viz. Time, place etc. Thus, Shri EVP Choudhary has contravened Rules 4.0 (1) (i), (ii) 5 0 (5), (9) and (20) of the SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.” 3. Basing on these allegations, the petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental proceeding was initiated against him, in which, the enquiry officer after enquiry submitted enquiry report, basing on which, the disciplinary authority passed impugned order dated 30.01.2006 whereby punishment of reduction to lower post, grade and pay-scale has been awarded by the disciplinary authority, though, it is alleged that the impugned order dated 30.01.2006 was never communicated to the petitioner. It has further been averred that while the petitioner was put under suspension, he was directed to mark his attendance in the office of Chief Security BSL/SAIL. It has further been averred that while the petitioner was put under suspension, he was directed to mark his attendance in the office of Chief Security BSL/SAIL. Accordingly, the petitioner was marking his attendance, but all of a sudden, he 3 was served a second memorandum of charge dated 25.04.2006 mentioning therein that he failed to maintain absolutely devotion of duty and committed an act subversive of discipline in as much as he is being absenting himself unauthorizedly from duty since 02.02.2006 and he has failed to report to his duty on revocation of suspension vide order dated 30.01.2006. It has further been averred that on receiving memo of charge dated 25.04.2006, the petitioner for the first time came to know about the order dated 30.01.2006 and thereafter, he preferred appeal, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.12.2006 whereby punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was reduced from “Reduction to lower post, grade and scale of pay from E6 grade to Minimum of E4 grade i.e. Rs. 17,500/-w.e.f 30.01.2006” to “Reduction to lowest stage in time scale of pay of E6 (19000-450-24400) w.e.f 30.01.2006.” 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by appellate authority, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said Late Md. Mustafa, who was attached with the office of petitioner, was permitted by him to be deployed by his junior colleague in connection with some official work and while discharging his duties, he met with an accident and was admitted in Bokaro General Hospital on 25.05.2005. On receiving such information, immediately, the petitioner went to hospital where the said employee succumbed to his injuries at 4.00 p.m. Accordingly, the petitioner on presentation of the intimation of Accident (Outside Plant) to him by a departmental colleague signed on the same and the form was presented within the stipulated 24 hours to the Safety department regarding the death of the employee, whereupon the Safety enquiry committee was constituted which came with a findings that the said fatal accident took place while he was sent on official duty. But, ignoring the findings given by safety enquiry committee, the management with malafide intentions constituted a Fact Finding Enquiry Committee which gave ex parte report, basing on which, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment, which was not even communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner came to know only when second memo of charge dated 25.04.2006 was served on totally baseless allegations. Being aggrieved, though the petitioner preferred appeal but the appellate authority did not consider the points raised by the petitioner in its true perspective and passed the impugned order. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in response of memorandum of charge, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence dated 09.07.2005, which on being found not satisfactory, an enquiry committee was constituted, in which, the petitioner actively participated and sufficient opportunity was afforded to him to place his case; hence, the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority needs no interference by this Court. On the specific plea made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by disciplinary authorial was not served upon the petitioner, it has been submitted that the same was served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 30.01.2006 through Chief (Security) but it is the petitioner who refused to receive the same though he had come to mark his attendance in the suspension register; hence, said letter was sent on his permanent and present address on 3.02.2006. In the meanwhile, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was thoroughly considered and after considering all the facts, the punishment awarded was reduced. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and having bestowed my anxious consideration to the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I).For the allegations, as mentioned in 'Statement of Article of Charges', the petitioner was put under suspension and departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, in which, enquiry officer was appointed, who after thorough enquiry submitted enquiry report, basing on which, impugned order was passed by the disciplinary authority. It appears that in the departmental proceeding after following due procedure, the impugned order was passed strictly in adherence to the principles of natural justice. It appears that in the departmental proceeding after following due procedure, the impugned order was passed strictly in adherence to the principles of natural justice. It further appears that in the case at hand there is no violation of principles of natural justice and sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to defend his case and disciplinary authority after considering all the facts and findings given by the enquiry officer imposed the impugned order of punishment. However, taking into the fact that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is very severe, for the ends of justice, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority was reduced. (ii). From the pleadings available on record, it further appears that in the case at hand, in view of the seriousness of allegations and proved misconduct, the power of judicial review cannot be applied. Moreover, the fact findings given by the two consecutive authorities based upon the materials 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 . Furthermore, the Apex Court in case of State of U.P. and others Vrs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Another as reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 at paragraph 4 held as follows:- “ …....... It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed.” Applying the aforesaid principles of Hon'ble Apex Court, as indicated herein above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. (iii).Furthermore, in the case at hand, the punishment awarded does not appear to be shockingly disproportionate, hence, on the ground of quantum of punishment also, there is no scope of interference. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of V. Ramana Vs. (iii).Furthermore, in the case at hand, the punishment awarded does not appear to be shockingly disproportionate, hence, on the ground of quantum of punishment also, there is no scope of interference. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision rendered in the case of V. Ramana Vs. A.P. SRTC & Ors as reported in (2005) 7 SCC 338 in particular paragraphs 11 and 12, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has in unequivocal terms has enunciated that the scope of judicial review is limited to deficiency in decision making process; which in the instant case does not find place and further held that interference is only called for when punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, I am of the 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.