JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard Ms. Bakshi Vibha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents along with Mr. Bharat Bhushan Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(A) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.06.2019 passed in Respondent No. 5 (Annexure-4) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been removed from service for the negligence in duty (sleeping) which is highly dis-appropriate against the offence which the petitioner committed and also ignoring the facts and circumstances in which such offence has been committed by the petitioner and as this is the first chance when the petitioner has been caught by his serious and at least one chance may be provided to the petitioner to improve his conduct as other have been provided and the petitioner has been left out to the reasons best known to the respondents. (B) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions for quashing of the order dated 28.07.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 04 (Annexure-05 of the main writ petition) whereby and where-under the learned appellate authority has please to dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. (C) For issuance of appropriate writ/writs order/orders direction/directions for quashing of the order dated 28-02-2011 passed by the revisional authorities i.e. the Respondent No. 03 whereby and where-under the learned revisional authority has also dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner (filed in supplementary petition as annexure 6).” Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the order of punishment of dismissal from service which according to the petitioner, is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled and found proved against the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed as constable on 11.02.2006 and was served with a charge memo dated 24.11.2009 alleging that the petitioner was posted at BCCL unit, Dhanbad area no. 5 on 24.10.2009 from 17:00 hours to 05:00 hours at Bansjora Workshop and at 4:00 hours in the morning, he was found sleeping on a table and had kept below his arms and ammunition. 6. 5 on 24.10.2009 from 17:00 hours to 05:00 hours at Bansjora Workshop and at 4:00 hours in the morning, he was found sleeping on a table and had kept below his arms and ammunition. 6. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner denied the allegation levelled against him by filing a reply and he had tried to explain that the petitioner had fainted while he was on duty due to long hours. He submits that the petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry where the petitioner duly participated and ultimately, he was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. He submits that the explanation of the petitioner was not duly considered and dismissal from service merely on account of sleeping while on duty for some time, is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled. He submits that in his explanation, he has also submitted that he was found doing his duty properly even till 03.40 hours in the morning, as was mentioned in his reply. 7. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner filed appeal. The appeal was also dismissed and the revision was also dismissed. He submits that the authorities have not considered the fact that the punishment given to the petitioner was shockingly disproportionate. Arguments on behalf of the Respondents 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that altogether two charges were levelled against the petitioner; not only he was found sleeping on duty at 4:00 hours in the morning by keeping his arms below the table, but it was also alleged that he had pointed the rifle at his senior and thereafter, he had run away. She submits that the allegations were proved against the petitioner in the enquiry and the disciplinary authority has passed a detailed order in connection with the allegations levelled against the petitioner and ultimately, passed an order of removal from service. The petitioner had also filed appeal against the same, but the appeal was dismissed and the revision was also dismissed. The learned counsel submits that the plea of disproportionate punishment was also considered by the appellate authority and the same was rejected. 9. The petitioner had also filed appeal against the same, but the appeal was dismissed and the revision was also dismissed. The learned counsel submits that the plea of disproportionate punishment was also considered by the appellate authority and the same was rejected. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in Pravin Kumar vs. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 to submit that the scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings is very limited and no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Findings of this Court 10. Before proceeding, it would be important to keep in mind the scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary enquiry in writ proceedings. The scope of interference in the matter of disciplinary proceedings has been summarized in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Pravin Kumar vs. Union of India, (2020) 9 SCC 471 and also in the case of Deputy General Manager vs. Ajai Kr. Srivastava, 2021 SCC Online SC 4. 11. Para-25 and 28 of the judgment in Pravin Kumar (supra) dealing with scope of judicial review in service matters, are quoted as under: “I. Scope of judicial review in service matters 25. The learned counsel for the appellant spent considerable time taking us through the various evidence on record with the intention of highlighting lacunae and contradictions. We feel that such an exercise was in vain, as the threshold of interference in the present proceedings is quite high. The power of judicial review discharged by constitutional courts under Article 226 or 32, or when sitting in appeal under Article 136, is distinct from the appellate power exercised by a departmental appellate authority. It would be gainsaid that judicial review is an evaluation of the decision-making process, and not the merits of the decision itself. Judicial review seeks to ensure fairness in treatment and not fairness of conclusion. It ought to be used to correct manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome. 26................. 27................. 28. It is thus well settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. It ought to be used to correct manifest errors of law or procedure, which might result in significant injustice; or in case of bias or gross unreasonableness of outcome. 26................. 27................. 28. It is thus well settled that the constitutional courts while exercising their powers of judicial review would not assume the role of an appellate authority. Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing into the merits of a case like an appellate authority. 29................. 30.................” 12. Similar view has been taken in the case of Deputy General Manager vs. Ajai Kr. Srivastava, 2021 SCC Online SC 4. Para 23 to 28 of the report is quoted as under: “23. It has been consistently followed in the later decision of this Court in H.P. SEB vs. Mahesh Dahiya and recently by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pravin Kumar vs. Union of India. 24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority. (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with. 25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the court is to examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority. (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied with. (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion. 26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry. 27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravity of the charge against the delinquent employee. It is true that mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in the departmental enquiry proceedings. 28. The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala-fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” 13. Thus, the scope of interference in departmental enquiry in the present case has to be seen in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements. 14. Thus, the scope of interference in departmental enquiry in the present case has to be seen in the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements. 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on account of two charges which have been referred to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner participated in the disciplinary enquiry and was found guilty. The petitioner was given an opportunity to respond to the enquiry report. 15. This Court finds that it is not in dispute even from the side of the petitioner that the petitioner was found sleeping while on duty, but a different explanation was given by the petitioner for having been found sleeping. This Court finds that the petitioner was found guilty and the disciplinary authority passed a detailed speaking order and has ultimately inflicted the petitioner with a punishment of removal from service. The appellate authority also considered the plea of disproportionate punishment and rejected the same. The revisional authority also considered the grievance of the petitioner and ultimately dismissed the revision application. The enquiry was conducted in terms of Rule 36 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (amended Rule 2002). This Court has gone through the impugned orders and finds that the authorities have considered all the relevant materials on record and have passed well-reasoned order. 16. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, this Court finds that considering the allegation proved against the petitioner while on duty, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner i.e. removal from service, is commensurate with the charges levelled against the petitioner. The appellate authority has considered the plea of disproportionate punishment and has rejected such plea. This court is of the considered view that the punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate, much less, shockingly disproportionate, calling for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. Considering the limited scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court finds that there is neither any procedural irregularity nor any violation of rules and procedure nor any violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned orders and proceedings and accordingly, no case for interference is made out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. 18. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.