JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.192 dated 08.02.2020 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jamshedpur (respondent No.4, whereby and whereunder petitioner has been terminated from service from the post of Constable w.e.f. 08.02.2020 and for quashing the order contained in Memo No.319 dated 17.08.2020 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail), Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 08.02.2020 has been rejected and the order of termination has been affirmed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner takes only one ground in this writ petition. He submits that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct. 4. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the records. The facts emanating from the records are that the petitioner had joined service as Constable in Bihar Police on 11.01.1999. His services were allocated to the State of Jharkhand and he joined at Jamshedpur in the office of Railway Police Centre, Jamshedpur. He was deputed in Shrawani Mela at Deoghar in the year 2019 for maintaining law and order and was posted at outer Post No.1, Dumma. While posting there, a complaint against the petitioner was made that petitioner along with other police persons were keeping an unknown lady in the police camp. Thereafter again a complaint was made that the petitioner alongwith other police persons have kept two ladies in Dumma Community Hall. A chargesheet vide memo No.1216 dated 03.09.2019 was drawn wherein it was alleged that petitioner has kept an unknown lady in Dumma Community Hall and he was also charged with dereliction in duty, violation of order and has acted as incompetent police person. Petitioner had not appeared before the Enquiry Officer and later on he was debarred to appear before the Enquiry Officer and proceeding was conducted exparte. Second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide memo No.13 dated 03.01.2020. On conclusion of departmental proceeding, by order contained in Memo No.192 dated 08.02.2020 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jamshedpur (respondent No.4) petitioner has been terminated from service from the post of Constable w.e.f. 08.02.2020. Second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide memo No.13 dated 03.01.2020. On conclusion of departmental proceeding, by order contained in Memo No.192 dated 08.02.2020 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jamshedpur (respondent No.4) petitioner has been terminated from service from the post of Constable w.e.f. 08.02.2020. Petitioner had preferred an appeal against his termination order before the Deputy Inspector General (Rail) and by order contained in Memo No.319 dated 17.08.2020 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail), Jharkhand, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 08.02.2020 has been rejected and the order of termination has been affirmed. 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that charge against the petitioner has been found proved in the departmental proceeding and after several opportunities, the petitioner chose not to appear before the enquiry officer, hence the proceeding was exparte. The Superintendent of Police (Rail) has rightly terminated the petitioner from service keeping in view the serious nature of charge against the petitioner and the appellate authority, i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail) also did not find any illegality in the termination order and accordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the order of termination passed by the enquiry officer. Counsel for the respondents submits that there is absolutely no illegality either in the order passed by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. Both the orders have been passed after weighing the materials available on record and keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner. 6. After hearing the parties and going through the records, I find that the petitioner had kept different women in Dumma Community Hall while he was on duty, which is not befitting to a public servant working in armed police. Charges were found proved in the departmental proceeding wherein the petitioner, inspite of several opportunities, chose not to appear. The appellate authority, i.e., Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail) also did not find any ground to interfere with the order of termination passed by the disciplinary authority. I find that the petitioner has failed to bring anything on record to show that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and on the contrary, the charge, which has been proved against the petitioner is very serious in nature. I find that the petitioner has failed to bring anything on record to show that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and on the contrary, the charge, which has been proved against the petitioner is very serious in nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of cases including in the case of Mithilesh Singh versus Union of India reported in (2003) 3 SCC 309 has held that 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. Thus, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in either of the orders, i.e., Memo No.192 dated 08.02.2020 issued by the Superintendent of Police (Rail), Jamshedpur (respondent No.4, whereby and whereunder petitioner has been terminated from service from the post of Constable w.e.f. 08.02.2020 or the order contained in Memo No.319 dated 17.08.2020 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Rail), Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 08.02.2020 has been rejected and the order of termination has been affirmed. Further, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal inasmuch as the petitioner has not been able to bring on record any error of law or procedural error, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Gujarat versus Hitendra Vrajlal Ashara reported in (2014) 15 SCC 614 has observed that it is a well-accepted principle of law that the High Court while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate court and its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct an error of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of natural justice. I find no ground for judicial review of the order of punishment. Thus, there being no merit, this writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.