JUDGMENT : Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the Office Order No.01/Estb.-233/03/1945 dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure-14) issued by Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder punishment of compulsory retirement has been inflicted against the petitioner. 2. The fact of the case in short as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the Petitioner was employed as an Assistant Electrician in the Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur. While in service, the wife of the petitioner had applied for allotment of residential plot through lottery in the year 1997 and after being declared successful, a plot was allotted in favour of the wife of the petitioner. As petitioner was not having any residential house, the Executive Engineer, Jharkhand State Housing Board, Jamshedpur vide Memo No.3658 dated 06.12.1996 allotted House No.22/2-1 in favour of the petitioner on temporary basis on rent. On 08.06.2001 he made an application for making permanent allotment of the said house in his favour and for entering into Hire Purchase Agreement and consequently recommendation in this regard was made in favour of the petitioner. After considering the entire facts, the Superintending Engineer vide Memo No.60 dated 14.06.2001 directed the Executive Engineer to execute an agreement in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that in spite of such direction the Executive Engineer was not making allotment of Flat, the petitioner moved this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.1875 of 2008 seeking a direction upon the Jharkhand State Housing Board to execute a Hire Purchase Agreement in favour of petitioner with respect to Flat No.22/2-1 situated at Bagbera Housing Colony. The Hon’ble Court vide an order dated 27.01.2016 dismissed the aforesaid writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.224 of 2016. However, after some argument the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said appeal and the appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 14.06.2016. The Hon’ble Court vide an order dated 27.01.2016 dismissed the aforesaid writ application. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.224 of 2016. However, after some argument the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said appeal and the appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 14.06.2016. In the meantime after dismissal of the writ application, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur vide letter No.2008 dated 19.05.2016 directed the Executive Engineer for getting the aforesaid flat vacated by exercising his power under Section 83 and 59 of the Bihar State Housing Board Act, 1982, but later on the Executive Engineer vide letter No.791 dated 20.05.2016 ordered for removing the seal and hand over the possession of flat back to the petitioner as they had not obtained permission from competent court in the matter. However, in view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner voluntarily vacated the premises on 14.06.2016 itself and handed over the vacant possession of the quarter to the respondents-authorities and informed the said fact to the concerned Executive Engineer, Jamshedpur vide letter dated 15.06.2016. However in spite of the fact that the petitioner voluntarily vacated the flat, the respondent-Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board put the petitioner under suspension vide Memo No.779 dated 28.07.2016. Thereafter petitioner was served a memo of charge vide letter No.612 dated 13.06.2016. The show cause submitted by the petitioner was not accepted and the Housing Board proceeded to conduct an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charges to be proved. After receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued a second show cause notice by the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board vide Memo No.1788 dated 02.11.2017 and after that the respondent-Managing Director, Jharkhand State Housing Board vide Office Order No.01/Estb.-233/03/1945 dated 30.11.2017 had imposed punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Hence this writ is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner after having lost the case before this Hon’ble Court and after withdrawing Letters Patent Appeal immediately vacated the premises, and as such in this scenario issuance of charge-sheet is wholly illegal and malicious. Hence this writ is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner after having lost the case before this Hon’ble Court and after withdrawing Letters Patent Appeal immediately vacated the premises, and as such in this scenario issuance of charge-sheet is wholly illegal and malicious. Learned counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has been issued only to penalize the petitioner for approaching this Hon’ble Court for redressal of his grievances and without considering the reply of petitioner, in a most cryptic manner the order dated 30.11.2017 have been passed and as such the order impugned deserved to be quashed for the ends of justice. 4. Per contra the counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner with dishonest intention and for making personal gain, got the aforesaid flat allotted in his favour and in spite of cancellation order of the aforesaid allotment, the petitioner did not vacate the flat which is violation of Rules 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rule, 1976. It is further submitted that the wife of petitioner was allotted Low Income Category Plot (L-112), upon which she had constructed double storied building and by suppressing this fact, the petitioner had earlier moved this court by filing writ petition and in this manner he had tried to mislead the Court/Board and as such this conduct is in gross violation of Rule 3(1) (i) (ii) (iii), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Bihar Government Servants’ Conduct Rule, 1976. At last it is submitted that even after direction of the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner did not vacate the flat which reflects the callous approach of the petitioner, accordingly this petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. Before appreciating the rival submissions of the parties, this court deem it fit and proper to refer certain judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope of judicial review in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors Vs. P. Gunasekaran [ AIR 2015 SC 545 ] at paragraph 13, has formulated the following guidelines for showing interference in the decision taken by the disciplinary authority or not to interfere with the decision, which reads hereunder as: “13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors Vs. P. Gunasekaran [ AIR 2015 SC 545 ] at paragraph 13, has formulated the following guidelines for showing interference in the decision taken by the disciplinary authority or not to interfere with the decision, which reads hereunder as: “13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge No. 1 was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority ; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i). re-appreciate the evidence; (ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv). go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. go into the reliability of the evidence; (v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. vs. Abrar Ali (2017) 4 SCC 507 , has elucided the guidelines at paragraphs 13 and 14 showing interference by the High Court in the matter of punishment imposed on conclusion of the departmental proceeding, which is quoted herein below: “13. Contrary to findings of the Disciplinary Authority, the High Court accepted the version of the Respondent that he fell ill and was being treated by a local doctor without assigning any reasons. It was held by the Disciplinary Authority that the Unit had better medical facilities which could have been availed by the Respondent if he was really suffering from illness. It was further held that the delinquent did not produce any evidence of treatment by a local doctor. The High Court should not have entered into the arena of facts which tantamounts to re-appreciation of evidence. It is settled law that reappreciation of evidence is not permissible in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 584 : ( AIR 2011 SC 1931 , Para 6), this Court held as follows: "7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic inquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the inquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.” 6. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it transpires that a regular departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner on the basis of a charge memo (Annexure-9) and the petitioner was given full opportunity to present his side and defend his case on several dates. From perusal of enquiry report (Annexure-11) it appears that all the head of charges were found proved against the petitioner and after considering the explanation to the second show cause as submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities have awarded the punishment. Therefore, there is no infirmity or lacunae in the impugned order and the same has been passed as per the procedure established by law and in this circumstances the question of violation of natural justice also does not arise. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements the present petition sans merit and hence required no interference. 8. In the result this writ petition stands dismissed.