JUDGMENT : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing office order issued vide memo no. 344, dated 02.02.2012, by Director, Agriculture, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby and whereunder petitioner has been awarded punishment of censure, stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and further direction was given to treat the period of suspension i.e. 20.11.2009 to 12.12.2009 as ‘No Work No Pay’. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the memo dated 07.06.2017, whereby appeal filed against office order no. 344, dated 02.02.2012, has been rejected without passing any speaking order. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to make payment of the salary for the period of suspension along with other consequential benefits. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant in the Weight and Measurement Department on 31.05.1975 at Patna and thereafter, he was transferred to different places till October, 1998. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Inspector, Weight and Measurement Department and was sent for training from December, 1998 to March, 1999 at Indian Institute of Legal Metrology, Kanke, Ranchi and after completion of the said training, he was posted as Inspector in the Department of Weight and Measurement, Giridih, where, petitioner worked till August, 2002. Thereafter, petitioner was transferred to Ramgarh and worked there till January, 2006 and subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Bistupur, Jamshedpur, where he joined on 25.01.2006 and worked till the date of his suspension i.e. 12.12.2009. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was put under suspension on the ground of unauthorized absence from the duty for the period between 20.11.2009 to 12.12.2009. However, vide office order No. 344 dated 02.02.2012, his suspension was revoked but with punishment of censure, stoppage of one increment without cumulative and with a stipulation that unauthorized absence for the said period will be treated as ‘No Work No Pay’. After revocation of the suspension, the petitioner was posted at Garhwa and thereafter, transferred to Giridih and lastly, he was transferred to Koderma from where he retired on 31.08.2015. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment, petitioner preferred appeal before the Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. However, as later on, the Weight and Measurement Department came under the jurisdiction of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment, petitioner preferred appeal before the Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi. However, as later on, the Weight and Measurement Department came under the jurisdiction of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, petitioner preferred another appeal before the Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affair Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the concerned Secretary has been pleased to reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide memo dated 07.06.2017. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances. 5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner had duly appeared in the departmental proceedings and submitted his written statement but the same has not been considered and illegally and arbitrarily impugned orders have been passed against him in the departmental proceeding, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority. Learned counsel further submits that while passing the impugned order, the respondent-authorities did not consider the order dated 31.07.2007, passed in W.P.(S) No. 4100 of 2007, whereby a direction was given to the competent authority of the State of Bihar to pass appropriate order upon representation of the petitioner with regard to allocation of cadre. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner was never served copy of memo of charge nor granted any opportunity to submit his show-cause before initiation of departmental proceeding and for first time, he came to know about the allegations levelled against him from the order of suspension, which is against the principles of natural justice. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that petitioner did not join the transferred place and without prior approval of casual leave by the controlling officer, violated the order of transfer which is totally in contravention of Rule 265 of Jharkhand Service Code as also of para-3(ix) of the Resolution dated 18.10.1993, Department of Agriculture. Learned counsel submits that allegations against the petitioner were found true and as such appeal has also been rejected. 7. Be that as it may, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in the instant writ petition. Admittedly, petitioner has been held guilty of the charges and the same has been affirmed by appellate authority. Admittedly, petitioner has been held guilty of the charges and the same has been affirmed by appellate authority. In case of Mithilesh Singh Vrs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 309 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “9. The only other plea is regarding punishment awarded. As has been observed in a series of cases, the scope of interference with punishment awarded by a disciplinary authority is very limited and unless the punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the court cannot interfere with the same.” 8. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has limited scope of interference in case of concurrent findings of the two Authorities and as such, the scope of judicial review is very limited and unless punishment appears to be shockingly disproportionate, the Court cannot interfere with the same, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Mithilesh Singh (supra). 9. For the aforesaid facts and reasons, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.