ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The appellant who was employed with Jharkhand Police faced the departmental enquiry on the charge that he made dishonest withdrawals for the months of March 2009, September 2009, October 2009, November 2009 and January 2010 while he was retaining official accommodation. In the Departmental Proceeding No. 169 of 2010, three witnesses were examined by the department to establish the charge of dishonest withdrawal of house allowance by the appellant. The enquiring officer submitted a report on 11th August 2010 rendering an opinion that the delinquent employee appears to be guilty of committing the charged misconduct. The disciplinary authority issued second show-cause notice on 30th September 2010 providing an opportunity to the appellant to put forth his defence, why he be not dismissed from service. By an order dated 19th October 2010, the disciplinary authority awarded punishment of dismissal from service with further stipulation that the delinquent employee shall not be entitled for full pay and allowances except the subsistence allowance which was paid to him during the period of suspension. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 7th May 2011. 2. By an order dated 6th November 2015 the writ Court dismissed W.P.(S) No. 5406 of 2012 observing as under : “7. After having gone through the records and on hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference in view of the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (I) Admittedly, on the basis of allegations, charges has been framed and the enquiry has been conducted in which the petitioner has been found guilty by the enquiry officer. Basing on the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad (respondent no. 4) has passed the order of dismissal from service, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority (respondent no.3), the Deputy Inspector General of Police and also the memorial petition filed by the petitioner which has been rejected by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand (respondent no.2). 4) has passed the order of dismissal from service, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority (respondent no.3), the Deputy Inspector General of Police and also the memorial petition filed by the petitioner which has been rejected by the Director General of Police, Jharkhand (respondent no.2). (II) In the case in hand, in view of the seriousness of allegation and misconduct committed by the petitioner, the power of judicial review cannot be applied and moreover the fact finding given by the enquiry officer based on the material on record cannot be interfered with, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Another as reported in (2009) 8 SCC 310 , specially at paragraph 15, which is quoted herein below: “15. The legal position is well settled that the power of judicial review is not directed against the decision but is confined to the decision-making process. The court does not sit in judgment on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its own conclusions ………” 8. On cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and applying the aforesaid principles of Hon’ble Apex Court, as indicated hereinabove, the impugned order of dismissal dated 19.10.2010 passed by respondent no.4, vide Annexure-18 of the writ application, and the orders of the appellate authority dated 07.05.2011 and 15.02.2012 passed by respondent no.3 and 2 respectively, vide Annexures-20/1 and 22/1 confirming the order of punishment passed by respondent no.4 do not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.” 3. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned SC (L&C)-II assisted by Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, the learned vice-counsel, would submit that in a properly constituted departmental enquiry finding of misconduct has been recorded against the appellant and while so no interference with the writ Court's order is warranted. 4. From the materials on record, we would observe that the appellant did not make a grievance that the departmental proceeding was conducted in breach of Rule 828 (C) of the Jharkhand Police Manual. 4. From the materials on record, we would observe that the appellant did not make a grievance that the departmental proceeding was conducted in breach of Rule 828 (C) of the Jharkhand Police Manual. It is also not pleaded by him that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself. The case set up by the appellant is that he was given charge of Computer Operator in February 2010 whereas the allegation of dishonest withdrawal of house rent allowance pertained to entries made in the months of March 2009, September 2009, October 2009, November 2009 and January 2010. 5. However, the witnesses examined by the department tendered evidence that the appellant was posted in the Computer Section and he manipulated the records. Since the appellant is beneficiary of the entries made in his salary statement a doubt would arise that such entries made in the computer were his own handiwork. 6. In a departmental proceeding sufficiency of evidence to establish the charge is not an issue which can be examined by the writ Court and if there is some evidence to support the charge against the delinquent employee the writ Court would not interfere with the order of punishment. 7. In “State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra” AIR 1963 SC 779 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “9. ……. If the order of dismissal was based on the findings on Charges 1(a) and 1(e) alone the Court would have jurisdiction to declare the order of dismissal illegal but when the findings of the Tribunal relating to the two out of five heads of the first charge and the second charge was found not liable to be interfered with by the High Court and those findings established that the respondent was prima facie guilty of grave delinquency, in our view the High Court had no power to direct the Governor of Orissa to reconsider the order of dismissal. ….. Therefore if the order may be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed, it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. ….. Therefore if the order may be supported on any finding as to substantial misdemeanour for which the punishment can lawfully be imposed, it is not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. The Court has no jurisdiction if the findings of the enquiry officer or the Tribunal prima facie make out a case of misdemeanour, to direct the authority to reconsider that order because in respect of some of the findings but not all it appears that there had been violation of the rules of natural justice. The High court was, in our judgment, in error in directing the Governor of Orissa to reconsider the question.” 8. The law is such because the writ Court is not constituted as a Court of appeal and, therefore, cannot reappreciate the evidence laid by the parties in the domestic enquiry. We would agree with the writ Court which referred to the judgment in “State of Uttar Pradesh & Another v. Man Mohan Nath Sinha & Another” (2009) 8 SCC 310 that the powers of judicial review are not directed against the decision but are confined to the decision making process. 9. Leaving aside the aforesaid issues, we do not feel that the order of punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charge framed and found proved against the appellant in the departmental enquiry. Under Rule 824 of the Jharkhand Police Manual the following punishments can be inflicted on a police officer : “824: (a) dismissal, (b) removal, (c) compulsory retirement, (d) reduction in rank, (e) forfeiture of last increment(s) or future increments(s), (f) black mark or marks, (g) censure, (h) confinement to quarters for a period not exceeding 15 days, (i) punishment drill, (j) extra guard or fatigue duty. Provided that the punishments mentioned in clauses (h) and (j) shall be imposed only on members of rank of constables/Havildars and that in clause (i) shall be imposed only on constables.” 10. Rule 826 of the Jharkhand Police Manual provides that the punishment awarded should be in confirmity with the gravity of offence with which the officer is charged. It further provides that the offences involving moral turpitude shall be carefully discriminated from smaller wrong doings. The misconduct committed by the appellant pertains to misappropriation of house allowance. Rule 826 of the Jharkhand Police Manual provides that the punishment awarded should be in confirmity with the gravity of offence with which the officer is charged. It further provides that the offences involving moral turpitude shall be carefully discriminated from smaller wrong doings. The misconduct committed by the appellant pertains to misappropriation of house allowance. He was a part of the police force and the misconduct committed by him constitutes moral turpitude. Therefore, punishment of dismissal from service though may seem harsh but the same is the only appropriate punishment for such misconduct. 11. In “Municipal Committee v. Krishnan Behari” (1996) 2 SCC 714 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “4. ….. In a case of such nature — indeed, in cases involving corruption — there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriate that is relevant....” 12. In “Karnataka SRTC v. M.G. Vittal Rao” (2012) 1 SCC 442 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “31. …it is a settled legal proposition that in a case of misconduct of grave nature like corruption or theft, no punishment other than the dismissal may be appropriate. (Vide Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. and U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma.)” 13. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no ground to interfere in the matter and, accordingly, L.P.A No. 727 of 2015 is dismissed.