JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner-State of Jharkhand has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 13.3.2015 / 17.3.2015 (Annexure-10) passed by the Revisional Authority (Member, Board of Revenue) in Revision Petition No. 26 of 2014, whereby the order of dismissal as imposed upon the respondent contained in Memo No. 5826(S) dated 20.6.2013 issued by Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, has been modified and the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service. Prayer has also been made to quash the review order dated 18.1.2019 (Annexure-11) passed by the Revisional Authority in Review Case No. 1/2015. Factual Matrix 3. The factual expositions as delineated in the writ petition are that the respondent was appointed as Junior Engineer on 16.2.1987 in Public Works Department. Thereafter the service of the respondent was allocated to the Road Construction Department by Notification dated 6.1.1988. While the respondent was posted as Junior Engineer, Soil Investigation Division, Rural Works Department, the competent authority decided to initiate a departmental proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, consolidated under Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935, against the respondent for dereliction of duty and irregularities committed during his posting. Thereafter, memorandum of charges in Prapatra’Ka’ containing as many as eleven charges were framed against the respondent by memo no. 2850 dated 20.4.2012. The respondent was also put under suspension on 13.3.2012. It may be stated that so far as eleven charges are concerned, charge nos. 1 to 8 were related with earlier misconduct of the respondent, which were already proved in earlier departmental proceeding dated 2.4.2008. The Enquiry Officer after enquiring the matter found the rest three charges proved. On being issued second show cause notice on 18.3.2013, the respondent replied on 8.6.2013 stating that since he is in custody, he could not reply earlier and sought some more times to file effective reply to the show cause. Finally by order dated 20.6.2013, the respondent was punished with dismissal from service. The appeal that was preferred on behalf of respondent by his advocate against the dismissal was not entertained by the State-appellant. Thereafter, the respondent preferred W.P.(S) No. 7752 of 2013, which was subsequently withdrawn to pursue his grievance before the Revisional Authority. The respondent preferred revision before the revisional authority i.e. Member, Board of Revenue, challenging the dismissal order. The appeal that was preferred on behalf of respondent by his advocate against the dismissal was not entertained by the State-appellant. Thereafter, the respondent preferred W.P.(S) No. 7752 of 2013, which was subsequently withdrawn to pursue his grievance before the Revisional Authority. The respondent preferred revision before the revisional authority i.e. Member, Board of Revenue, challenging the dismissal order. The Revisional Authority after hearing the parties by order dated 13.3.2015/17.3.2015 held that the quantum of punishment appears to be irrational and the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service and hence modified the order of dismissal to (i) stoppage of three increments with cumulative effects, (ii) censure, (iii) no promotion shall be granted up to two years, and (iv) the period of suspension & dismissal shall be counted for pensionary benefits only. He shall be paid only subsistence allowance for that period. Though the petitioner preferred review petition before the Revisional Authority, but the same was also rejected by order dated 18.1.2019. Hence, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this writ petition. Submission of Petitioner-State 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner State of Jharkhand submits that the order passed by the Revisional Authority modifying the order of dismissal is neither sustainable in law nor on facts, inasmuch as, punishment cannot be imposed upon a Government servant by an authority other than the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel adds that in the case at hand, the revisional authority by modifying the dismissal order, punished the respondent-employee as above. Learned counsel submits that the Revisional Authority while modifying the punishment order ignored the material facts that the respondent is a habitual offender of misconduct, criminal act and misusing of Government fund. Learned counsel submits that in view of the misconduct alleged against the respondent, as he has already been punished previously by order no. 2404 dated 2.4.2008, he cannot be allowed to work as a Government servant and he is still engaged in corrupt practices. Learned counsel submits that only because, the Revisional Authority has modified the punishment order, it cannot be said that the respondent has been exonerated from the charges levelled against him in the departmental proceeding. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General. RPF & Ors. Vs. Ch. Learned counsel submits that only because, the Revisional Authority has modified the punishment order, it cannot be said that the respondent has been exonerated from the charges levelled against him in the departmental proceeding. Relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director General. RPF & Ors. Vs. Ch. Sai Babu, reported in (2003) SCC 331, learned counsel submits that the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed even by the High Court or a tribunal except in appropriate cases. In support of his contention, learned counsel further places reliance upon the decision of the cases of R.S. Saini Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 90 and Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.S. Ahluwalia, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 257 . On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel submits that the order passed by the Revisional Authority is bad in law, which requires interference by this Court. Submission of Respondent. 5. On the other hand, respondent employee appeared before this Court by filing Caveat No. 194 of 2019. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order passed by the Revisional Authority, whereby order of dismissal from service of the employee was modified, is wholly justified, in view of the fact that the dismissal order, which is based on the enquiry report and the same is conducted without examining any witness and without affording adequate opportunity to the respondent to defend his case, is contrary to Rule 55 of the CCA Rules. In support of his contention, learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Dewan Chuni Lal, reported in AIR 1970 SC 2086 and Commissioner of Police Vs. Jai Bhagwan, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 376 . Learned counsel submits that the revisional authority has every right to prevail over the order passed by the disciplinary authority where fundamental illegalities were found. In the present case, the respondent by his reply dated 8.6.2013 sought time to file effective reply, as he was at that time in judicial custody, but the disciplinary authority without considering the same, imposed the penalty of dismissal. In the present case, the respondent by his reply dated 8.6.2013 sought time to file effective reply, as he was at that time in judicial custody, but the disciplinary authority without considering the same, imposed the penalty of dismissal. Learned counsel submits that the revisional authority has duly recorded in its order that before taking decision of imposing penalty, the disciplinary authority has taken consent from the Principal Secretary of the Department, being the appellate authority, who could not be expected to be free from bias. Learned counsel submits that when the forum of appeal being redundant, the revisional authority has rightly interfered with the punishment order and directed reinstatement of the respondent with certain punishments and hence, no interference is warranted in the present writ petition. Findings of the Court. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made for interference in the present writ petition. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-State that the punishment imposed by a disciplinary authority should not be disturbed even by the High Court or a tribunal is not sustainable in the facts and situation of the present case. In a plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as this Court held that the Court under its power conferred by Article 226 of Constitution of India, can interfere in the matter of disciplinary proceedings if the disciplinary/enquiry proceedings were conducted in violation of manner prescribed and against Principle of Natural Justice and if the order of concerned authority is non speaking and unreasoned. This Court can interfere in the matter of disciplinary proceedings if the decision making process is in violation of Rules or against Principle of Natural Justice. The judicial review in the matter of departmental proceedings is permissible with respect to decision making process and not against the decision itself unless it is shown that the decision is without any evidence or suffers from malafide or malice or harsh or without jurisdiction. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shashikant S. Patil & Anr., reported in (2000)1 SCC 416 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “16. In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Shashikant S. Patil & Anr., reported in (2000)1 SCC 416 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “16. The Division Bench of the High Court seems to have approached the case as though it was an appeal against the order of the administrative/disciplinary authority of the High Court. Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such enquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority (in this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the enquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.” 7. In the case at hand, admittedly, the respondent was charge-sheeted for eleven charges, out of which eight charges are related to his earlier misconduct, which have already been decided in earlier departmental proceeding. The rest three charges, which are said to have been proved by the enquiry officer, are related to inferior quality of work and disproportionate assets. The respondent sought time to file effective reply to the enquiry report, as the respondent was at that time in judicial custody. The disciplinary authority without considering the same, passed the penalty order dismissing him from service. The respondent filed the appeal through advocate, which was not entertained by the Department. Thereafter, respondent preferred revision. The respondent sought time to file effective reply to the enquiry report, as the respondent was at that time in judicial custody. The disciplinary authority without considering the same, passed the penalty order dismissing him from service. The respondent filed the appeal through advocate, which was not entertained by the Department. Thereafter, respondent preferred revision. The Revisional Authority has dealt with each and every charges and finally came to conclusion that the petitioner (respondent herein) has suffered for not placing his case during the initial departmental enquiry stage and the violation of principles of natural justice has also vitiated the penalty imposed. Thereby, the Revisional Authority modified the quantum of punishment imposed against the respondent as aforesaid. At the revisional stage, charge of inferior quality in construction of building are not found true. So far as charge of disproportionate property is concerned, the Revisional Authority has duly recorded that there is a case still pending before the competent court for disproportionate asset. 8. The contention of the learned AAG appearing for the petitioner State that the Revisional Authority had no power to modify the penalty order, is not acceptable to this Court. When the Statute / Rule provides that delinquent is entitled to prefer revision, the Revisional Authority had every power to even set aside the penalty order, as also to modify the same. The powers vested in Revisional Authority are very wide and are more extensive than powers vested in Appellate Authority in deciding appeals. The power of Revisional Authority extends to even suo motu reopening of a proceeding where the Government servant had been exonerated and no appeal had been preferred. The Appellate Authority in deciding an appeal can either confirm, set aside, reduce the penalty imposed or enhance the penalty or remit back the proceeding for further inquiry. In the present case, the Revisional Authority had interfered with the quantum of punishment imposed upon the delinquent (respondent herein), having wide and extensive powers than the Appellate Authority. The order passed by the Revisional Authority is based on cogent reasons and the same is justified. In this view of the matter, this Court under Article 226 would not interfere with the order of Revisional Authority, as affirmed by the order passed in review application. 9. The order passed by the Revisional Authority is based on cogent reasons and the same is justified. In this view of the matter, this Court under Article 226 would not interfere with the order of Revisional Authority, as affirmed by the order passed in review application. 9. As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, and legal propositions, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.