JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.10.2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority in Departmental Proceeding No. 28 of 1999, whereby punishment of stoppage of one increment (non-cumulative), which is equivalent to two black marks, has been inflicted upon the petitioner. Further, the appellate order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner stood dismissed is also under challenge. 3. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. It is not necessary to deal with each and every details, as petitioner had earlier moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1417 of 2008 challenging the order of punishment, which was allowed in favour of the petitioner on 18.04.2016, setting aside the order of punishment and remanding the case to the authorities only on the quantum of punishment. 4. The petitioner is a constable and joined the Rail Police at Jamshedpur on transfer. On 15.05.1999, there was a complaint against the petitioner that he misbehaved with some persons. The petitioner was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated. In the departmental proceeding, petitioner was dismissed from service. The Appellate Authority also upheld the order of dismissal. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1417 of 2008. Aforesaid writ petition was heard and after considering all the aspects, this Court had set aside the order of dismissal and the appellate order and remanded the matter to consider the same afresh on the question of quantum of punishment. It is necessary to quote paragraph 6 of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 1417 of 2008, which reads as under: 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, coupled with judicial pronouncements as enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned order dated 26.08.2003 as also order dated 25.07.2002 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh maintly on the question of quantum of punishment taking into account the observations made by this Court, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 5. 5. Respondent-authorities, after remand, considered the case of the petitioner and thereafter awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment (non-cumulative), which is equivalent to two black marks, which is subject matter of this writ petition. Be it noted that “black mark” is a major punishment. 6. From the order passed in the writ petition, i.e. W.P. (S) No. 1417 of 2008, it is clear that this Court, has nowhere held the proceeding to be bad in law nor the Court found any irregularity or illegality in the proceeding. The Court also did not hold that the charges are not proved. The Hon’ble Single Judge only interfered with the quantum of punishment and remitted the matter to the authorities to consider the same on the quantum of punishment. When in the earlier round of litigation, this Court remitted the matter only on the question of quantum of punishment, this clearly suggests that the Hon’ble Single Judge was satisfied that charge levelled against the petitioner stood proved. 7. It is a well settled proposition of law that the High Court can interfere with the departmental proceeding only if there is illegality or irregularity in the proceeding, where there is violation of principles of natural justice, when the quantum of punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved. In the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and Others vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, 2020 SCC Online SC 954, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by referring to the decision in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, at paragraph 33 has held as follows: 33. In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, a three judge bench of this Court held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is not the function of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to review the evidence, and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. It is not the function of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to review the evidence, and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may, however interfere where the departmental authority which has held the proceedings against the delinquent officer are inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, where the findings are based on no evidence, which may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry, or the authorities were actuated by some extraneous considerations and failed to reach a fair decision, or allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations, or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. If however the enquiry is properly held, the departmental authority is the sole judge of facts, and if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a writ petition. 8. Further, the quantum of punishment is within the domain of Disciplinary Authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Singh vs. Union of India, (2003) 3 SCC 309 while referring to various earlier decisions, 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. 9. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority, on remand, has inflicted a punishment of stoppage of one increment (non-cumulative) which is equivalent to two black marks. Since the charge has already been proved against the petitioner and this finding had not been interfered or disturbed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1417 of 2008, considering the judgments referred to above, I am of the opinion that the quantum of punishment, which has been inflicted after remand cannot be said to be disproportionate. Since the charge has already been proved against the petitioner and this finding had not been interfered or disturbed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1417 of 2008, considering the judgments referred to above, I am of the opinion that the quantum of punishment, which has been inflicted after remand cannot be said to be disproportionate. Further, I also find that a co-delinquent was also given same punishment, that is the reason keeping in view the parity, this punishment was imposed upon the petitioner find no illegality in the impugned orders dated 08.10.2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority in Departmental Proceeding No. 28 of 1999 and the appellate order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner stood dismissed. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.