JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 02.02.2017 by which the writ petition filed by him challenging the order of his removal from service has been dismissed. 2. Before the writ Court, the appellant has challenged the order of removal from service dated 07.05.2003 and the order dated 27.08.2003 by which the appellate authority has rejected the appeal preferred by him against the order dated 07.05.2003. 3. Plea urged on behalf of the appellant is that during the departmental enquiry he was not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself and while so, the penalty order dated 07.05.2003 as well as the appellate order dated 27.08.2003 have been rendered illegal. 4. The appellant who was appointed as Deputy Manager on 03.02.1998 under M/s Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited was issued memo of charge on 20.03.2002. The statement of articles of charges framed against the appellant who at that time was holding the post of Junior Manager, Systems Dept./Hqrs are under three heads viz; (i) his attendance from the year, 2000 has been irregular as he has absented himself without leave, (ii) on four different occasions he has over-stayed beyond the sanctioned leave and remained absent unauthorizedly with effect from 03.03.2001, and (iii) disobeying the direction in the letter dated 07.03.2002 he has failed to resume his duty. The appellant submitted his written statement of defence on 01.04.2002 denying the charges in the memorandum of charge. The enquiry officer submitted an enquiry report on 22.02.2003 finding all the charges proved. The disciplinary authority by an order dated 07.05.2003 has inflicted the penalty of removal from service and, as recorded above, the appeal preferred by him has been dismissed on 27.08.2003. 5. In the above facts, the learned writ Court has dismissed the writ petition holding, thus; “5. The disciplinary authority by an order dated 07.05.2003 has inflicted the penalty of removal from service and, as recorded above, the appeal preferred by him has been dismissed on 27.08.2003. 5. In the above facts, the learned writ Court has dismissed the writ petition holding, thus; “5. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the documents on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any legally tenable point to warrant interference by this Court, due to following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement: (a).Admittedly, in the case at hand, the petitioner from the very beginning of his service career, intermittently proceeded on leave without proper sanction and some times over-stayed; on the one pretext or the other and remained unauthorizedly absent for a long period of time, for which, a proceeding was initiated mainly on the charge that his attendance was irregular from the year 2000, he remained absent without prior sanction of leave and of leaving headquarters without permission and for over-stay and it is further alleged that in spite of the direction to report for joining, he did not appear, which shows that the absent was willful and the petitioner was a habitual absentee. Hence, the impugned order of removal from services does not warrant interference by this Court. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board Vs. T.T. Murali Babu Sewerage Board & Ors as reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 . (b).From perusal of records, it is quite evident that since the inception of departmental proceeding till its culmination there is no procedural irregularity. Hence, looking to the facts of the case, it is to be seen as to whether the case of the petitioner comes within the ambit and scope of no evidence so as to enable this Court to exercise power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The factum of absence has been proved and during the course of hearing sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to put forth his defence as to whether the absence was willful or it was due to unavoidable or compelling circumstances. The factum of absence has been proved and during the course of hearing sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner to put forth his defence as to whether the absence was willful or it was due to unavoidable or compelling circumstances. (c).The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs Raj Kishore Yadav and Another as reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 at paragraph 4 has held that: “4. ........ It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquriy officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed..........”. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another as reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 has held that High Court under Article 226 cannot disturb the facts and findings given by the disciplinary authority. Applying the aforesaid principles of Hon'ble Apex Court, as indicated herein above, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order.” 6. An employee who is facing a departmental enquiry is entitled for adequate opportunity to defend himself, but then it is the facts and circumstances in the case which would decide whether a delinquent employee has been afforded sufficient opportunity or not. The appellant has submitted his statement of defence on 01.04.2002 and it is not denied by him that the departmental proceedings were held on 28.05.2002, 04.06.2002 and 06.06.2002. It is not a stand taken by the appellant that the documents on which the department has relied were not furnished to him or that inspite of his request to cross-examine a witness no such permission was granted to him. Once it is found that the appellant was offered sufficient opportunity to defend himself, it was lawful for the departmental authority to impose punishment upon the delinquent on the basis of the materials produced before it. In his written statement of defence, the appellant has simply pleaded that it was on account of his illness and illness of his father due to which he was not attending his duty regularly [para-2 of the written defence]. In his written statement of defence, the appellant has simply pleaded that it was on account of his illness and illness of his father due to which he was not attending his duty regularly [para-2 of the written defence]. He has also admitted that he has received the letter from the department directing him to tender his joining on or before 13.03.2002, however, he has taken a plea that he could not come due to viral fever. During the enquiry proceeding it has been brought on record that at least on seven occasions either he remained absent unauthorizedly or over-stayed for the periods ranging between five days to 177 days. 7. Not to forget, the charges framed against the appellant are all supported by documentary evidence which the appellant has not denied. 8. It is in these facts, we have examined the order dated 02.02.2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.7281 of 2005. By now it is well-settled that the findings recorded in a departmental enquiry is not open to challenge in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In “Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors.” reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 , power of judicial review of the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari has been explained by the Supreme Court. It has been held that only in cases where penalty has been inflicted upon the delinquent either in breach of the rules of natural justice or in breach of the extant rules, a writ of certiorari shall lie. If it is found that an authority legally vested with jurisdiction has arrived at a conclusion which is reasonably supported by the evidence led during the departmental enquiry, the High Court would not exercise its jurisdiction in a manner as if it is a Court of Appeal. It is also not the providence of the Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is demonstrated by the delinquent employee that the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the charges framed and found proved that it shocks the conscience of the Court [refer, “Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India & Ors.” (1987) 4 SCC 611 ]. 9. 9. In the present appeal, it is not a stand taken by the appellant that the writ Court while dismissing W.P.(S) No.7281 of 2005 has committed such grave error in law which would render the writ Court’s order unsustainable. It has also not shown to us that the orders passed by the departmental authorities are perverse. 10. In the aforesaid facts, more particularly, seriousness of the charges framed against the appellant which are found proved by the enquiry officer, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the writ Court does not warrant interference by this Court and, accordingly, L.P.A. No. 492 of 2017 is dismissed.