JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 09.06.2015 contained in Memo No.946, whereby, in a Departmental Proceeding No.6/15, whereby punishment was imposed upon the petitioner. The punishment is of withholding of increment for one year, which would be treated to be equivalent to two black marks. Further, the appellate order dated 27.11.2007, which dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, is also under challenge. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no occasion for the petitioner to be punished. It is his case that in the Departmental Proceeding, it is alleged that the girl had gone to the police station with the complaint of some sexual assault, but, in the Departmental Proceeding, witnesses had stated that the girl had come to the police station only to recover the mobile phone and the bicycle of her boyfriend. There is nothing to suggest that she was harassed and police did not cooperate in recording her statement. That being so, there was no role of the petitioner, which warrants punishment. 4. Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the petitioner was the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station, wherein a girl came in a semi-nude state with an allegation of sexual harassment by some persons, but, this petitioner did not show any concern nor did lodge any First Information Report. Girl, thereafter went missing, which led to a public outcry, then only this petitioner woke up from slumber. This action of the petitioner, definitely warrants punishment. As per the State-respondents, the punishment imposed cannot be said to be harsh and there is no procedural illegality or irregularity, thus, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the punishment. 5. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the records. 6. In this writ petition, the punishment order in a Departmental Proceeding and the consequent appellate order is under challenge. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a Court of appeal. The scope of interference, is very limited in a judicial review of administrative action. 6. In this writ petition, the punishment order in a Departmental Proceeding and the consequent appellate order is under challenge. This Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a Court of appeal. The scope of interference, is very limited in a judicial review of administrative action. 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. 7. Further, in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others versus Ajay Kumar Srivastava reported in (2021) 2 SCC 612 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 24 thereof has held as under:- 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. 8. In paragraph 25 of the aforesaid judgment (Ajay Kumar Srivastava) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has narrated the scope, which reads as follows:- 25. 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. 8. In paragraph 25 of the aforesaid judgment (Ajay Kumar Srivastava) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has narrated the scope, which reads as follows:- 25. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public service, 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. 9. In paragraph 28 of the aforesaid judgment (Ajay Kumar Srivastava) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution, the Court will not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceeding 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. 10. Considering the aforesaid proposition of law, which is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court now, let me examine the case in hand. I find that the petitioner was the Officer-in-Charge, Adityapur Police Station. Departmental chargesheet was issued against the petitioner mentioning therein that on 07.09.2014, a girl (name withheld by this Court) along with one Lakhinder Gope came to the police station. The girl was half nude and there was an allegation that she was sexually assaulted, but the police did not lodge the First Information Report and did not take any steps and sent them back. Thereafter on 09.09.2014, there was a public hue and cry and people came and inquired regarding whereabouts of the girl and Lakhinder Gope, as they were not found. Public questioned the act of the Officer-in-Charge. Due to protest, the main highway was also blocked, then only Adityapur Police Station Case No.303 of 2014 was instituted under Sections 364/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Inaction of this petitioner attracted initiation of a Departmental Proceeding. 11. Public questioned the act of the Officer-in-Charge. Due to protest, the main highway was also blocked, then only Adityapur Police Station Case No.303 of 2014 was instituted under Sections 364/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Inaction of this petitioner attracted initiation of a Departmental Proceeding. 11. In the Departmental Proceeding, witnesses were examined, who, in fact, were all the police officials of the Station. Documentary evidence was also exhibited, which is the Supervision Note Nos.1 and 2 by Adityapur Police Station Case No.303 of 2014. The Enquiry Officer submitted an Enquiry Report considering the oral and documentary evidence and found the charge against the petitioner to be proved. Thereafter completing all the formalities, petitioner was imposed with the punishment. 12. While I go through the Enquiry Report, I find that the Enquiry Officer has considered all the materials – witnesses and the documentary evidence. Though the witnesses, who appeared before the Enquiry Officer, only stated that the mobile phone of the girl and the cycle of the boy was snatched by unknown, but surprisingly they did not whisper about any sexual assault nor did they state that the girl arrived in the police station semi nude. Admittedly, the girl is not a witness before the enquiry officer in the Departmental Proceeding, but, the fact cannot be lost sight of is that there was a First Information Report, registered under Sections 364/376/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code in the same police station being Adityapur Police Station Case No.303 of 2014. The Supervision Report was also exhibited, which suggests that some untoward incident had occurred with the girl on 07.09.2014. The oral evidence also suggests that this girl and the boy came to the police station, but, surprisingly, the First Information Report was lodged only on 09.09.2014 when the general public became infuriated. The question is, if the actual incident had occurred with the girl on 07.09.2014 and the girl came to the police station on that day, then why a First Information Report was registered on 09.09.2014, i.e., after two days. The fact that nothing has happened with the girl cannot be accepted as there is a First Information Report on 09.09.2014. This First Information Report should have been registered on 07.09.2014 itself and it is due to the inaction of this petitioner and others the First Information Report was not lodged. The fact that nothing has happened with the girl cannot be accepted as there is a First Information Report on 09.09.2014. This First Information Report should have been registered on 07.09.2014 itself and it is due to the inaction of this petitioner and others the First Information Report was not lodged. I am not entering into the facts as to whether any untoward incident had happened with the girl or not as the same is immaterial for this case, but, the fact remains that the First Information Report was not registered when the girl had come with a complaint. The Enquiry Officer concluded that the girl had complained before this Officer, but, this petitioner directed the girl to approach a junior official without showing seriousness. The fact that seriousness or concern was not shown is evident from the fact that the First Information Report was, in fact, lodged after two days of the occurrence. Thus, the Enquiry Officer found the charge to be proved. 13. When a charge is proved in a Departmental Proceeding, the quantum of punishment becomes prerogative of the Disciplinary Authority. This Court, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, as cited above, can only interfere if the punishment is excessive and disproportionate to the proved misconduct. In this case, punishment is of stoppage of one yearly increment, which would be equivalent to two black marks. This punishment cannot be said to be harsh or excessive. Since the punishment is not harsh or excessive and there is no procedural illegality or irregularity and since the Enquiry Officer has found the charge to be proved against the petitioner, I find no illegality with the order dated 09.06.2015 contained in Memo No.946, whereby punishment was imposed upon the petitioner and the appellate order dated 27.11.2007, which dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 14. Thus, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned orders in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.