JUDGMENT : S. N. Pathak, J. Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 10.11.2014, passed by the Commissioner, Ranchi in Appeal under Rule 4 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1935 against the order dated 08.01.2014, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. Further prayer has been made to quash and set aside the order dated 08.01.2014, passed by Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, communicated to the petitioner on 16.01.2014 vide Memo No. 13, dated 11.01.2014, dismissing the petitioner from service under Rule 19 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Secretary (Appointment, Service Condition and Duty), Rules, 2002 Rule 2 (VIII) of Bihar & Orissa Subordinate Officer (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1935 and Rule 165 of the Bihar/Jharkhand Board Miscellaneous Rules, on the basis of Enquiry Report of Gandur Bhagat, Project Officer, Meso Area, Simdega in departmental Enquiry No. 01 of 2009. 3. The fact of the case in brief is that petitioner was working as a Panchayat Sewak under Kurdeg Block, Simdega and had to follow the instructions of the concerned Block Development Officer. Pursuant to memo no. 63(ii/G.P., dated 29.06.2009, petitioner was suspended by the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega with immediate effect and Ms. Durga Kumari Sinha, Establishment Deputy Collector, Simdega was appointed Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, petitioner was served with copy of Charges in Form – Ka without any enclosures mentioned therein and even after several communications, the same was never supplied to him. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his reply on 06.07.2009 denying the allegations levelled against him. In the meantime, after transfer of Enquiry Officer – Ms. Durga Kumari Sinha, another District Panchayat Raj Officer namely Shashi Sekhar was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Ms. Preeti Kishku was appointed as Presenting Officer by order of the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. Petitioner was asked to appear on 10.08.2009 along with its evidence and explanation before the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega. Petitioner filed the explanation dated 28.08.2009 before the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Upon receipt of explanation, the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, vide his order dated 15.12.2009, communicated to the petitioner by Memo No. 133(ii)/GP, dated 15.12.2009, revoked suspension order of the petitioner and he was transferred to Kurdeg Block. Petitioner filed the explanation dated 28.08.2009 before the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Upon receipt of explanation, the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, vide his order dated 15.12.2009, communicated to the petitioner by Memo No. 133(ii)/GP, dated 15.12.2009, revoked suspension order of the petitioner and he was transferred to Kurdeg Block. Petitioner made a request before the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega vide application dated 19.12.2009 for dropping departmental enquiry and for payment of arrears of pay and subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension but he was paid subsistence allowance only and arrears of pay was never paid to him leading to financial hardship to the petitioner. The Enquiry officer was again changed and pursuant to order dated 14.07.2010 of the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, the enquiry was entrusted to Gandur Bhagat, Project Officer, MESO Area, Simdega. During the course of enquiry, the BDO, Kurdeg submitted additional charges in form Ka against the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer without order of the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, which is illegal and improper. The related documents with charges was never supplied to the petitioner in spite of repeated request. 4. Mr. L.K. Passi, learned counsel representing the petitioner argues that the charges levelled against the petitioner were quite vague and cryptic. Petitioner demanded details of charges along with copy of the documents referred therein by way of several applications but the same was never made available to him. learned counsel further argues that the enquiry officer did not hold enquiry as per the provisions of Rule 55 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules nor has followed the instructions as contained in Rules 160 to 170 of the Bihar and Orissa Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1993. Learned counsel further argues that the Enquiry Officer without holding a fair and proper enquiry as per principles of natural justice has held the petitioner guilty of charges without any evidence against him. The enquiry officer even did not afford opportunity to the petitioner to defend the case nor provided him related documents and as such entire proceeding is vitiated and fit to be interfered. Learned counsel further argues that G. Bhagat, the Enquiry Officer prejudiced with the petitioner. The enquiry officer even did not afford opportunity to the petitioner to defend the case nor provided him related documents and as such entire proceeding is vitiated and fit to be interfered. Learned counsel further argues that G. Bhagat, the Enquiry Officer prejudiced with the petitioner. Even as per provisions of the Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and instructions as contained in Rules 160 to 170 of the Bihar and Orissa Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1930, the 2nd Show-cause notice was not given to the petitioner along with relevant documents. Petitioner had made several request for supply of relevant documents which were not supplied to him and petitioner was handicapped in submitting the reply of the charges levelled against him. Though there was no material before the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega to justify findings of the Enquiry Office even then the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega passed the impugned order which is void and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further argues that the Commissioner, Ranchi also erred in fact as well as law in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and the same also needs interference by this Court. 5. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the following Judgments: (i) Union of India Vs. B.V. Gopinath reported in AIR 2014 SC 88 ; (ii) Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 ; (iii) Union of India Vs. T.R. Varma reported in AIR 1957 SC 882 (iv) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1958 SC 300 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I argues that the impugned orders have been passed after due enquiry and affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and on the basis of enquiry report of Gandur Bhagat, Project Officer, MESO Area, Simdega, the orders have been passed following the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer or any other officer were never prejudiced. The order of dismissal was passed on the basis of findings of the enquiry officer and the same needs no interference. 7. The enquiry officer or any other officer were never prejudiced. The order of dismissal was passed on the basis of findings of the enquiry officer and the same needs no interference. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons: (i) The departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner after following due procedures of law and adhering to cardinal principles of natural justice. (ii) During course of inquiry, petitioner was given ample opportunity to lead his evidence and thereafter seeking reply and examining the same, being dissatisfied, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges and the charges were proved during course of enquiry by the enquiry officer. (iii) The petitioner was served with the copy of enquiry report along with the second show-cause notice to which he duly replied. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, held the petitioner guilty of charges and inflicted punishment. On appeal, the order of the disciplinary authority was affirmed by the appellate authority and the punishment of dismissal was upheld. (iv) The contention of the learned counsel that petitioner was not served with the second show-cause notice along with relevant documents, is totally falsified as it appears from the appellate order as well as the counter affidavit. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that he was not served copies of relevant documents, is not accepted to this Court. Nothing has been brought on record as to which relevant documents were not supplied to him which has prejudiced his case. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is not supported by any documents and guilt of the petitioner was proved by the enquiry officer during the course of enquiry. The supply of the enquiry report along with the second show-cause notice to which petitioner replied is ample proof that the petitioner was given ample opportunity of hearing to defend his case and since he could not succeed, false plea has been taken by the petitioner to misguide the Court. None of the Judgments relied upon by the petitioner is relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. None of the Judgments relied upon by the petitioner is relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (v) It is settled principles of law that when two statutory authorities have come with a concurrent finding, no interference is warranted by this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Judicial review in case of punishment order is only attracted when it is proved that the enquiry report is perverse and is a case of no evidence. Nothing has been brought on record nor it has been argued about the perversity of the enquiry report. There cannot be re-appraisal of evidence by this Court acting as an appellate authority. (vi) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vrs. P. Gunasekaran (SUPRA) has held that it can only consider whether enquiry held by the competent authority was in accordance with procedure established by law and principles of natural justice, whether irrelevant or extraneous considerations and/or exclusion of admissible or material evidence or admission of inadmissible evidence have influenced decision rendering it vulnerable”. The Hon’ble Court further held that, “it can interfere where finding is wholly arbitrary and capricious based on no evidence which no reasonable man could ever arrive at. It is relevant to quote relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment, which reads as under: “20. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford Dictionary is “moral uprightness; honesty”. It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence, etc. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values. 21. The impugned conduct of the respondent working as Deputy Office Superintendent in a sensitive department of Central Excise, according to the disciplinary authority, reflected lack of integrity warranting discontinuance in service. In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code of moral values. 21. The impugned conduct of the respondent working as Deputy Office Superintendent in a sensitive department of Central Excise, according to the disciplinary authority, reflected lack of integrity warranting discontinuance in service. That view has been endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal also. Thereafter, it is not open to the High Court to go into the proportionality of punishment or substitute the same with a lesser or different punishment. These aspects have been discussed at quite length by this Court in several decisions including B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44], Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [ (1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1806], Om Kumar v. Union of India [ (2001) 2 SCC 386 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1039], Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn. [ (2007) 4 SCC 669 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 68], Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri [ (2009) 15 SCC 620 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 499] and the recent one in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply [Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 38] . 24. The Central Administrative Tribunal, in the order dated 1-2-2001 in OA No. 521 of 2000, after elaborately discussing the factual as well as the legal position, has come to the conclusion that the punishment of compulsory retirement is not outrageous or shocking to its conscience, it was not open to the High Court to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings from stage one and direct reinstatement of the respondent with back wages.” (vii) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Para-24 to 28 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. 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; (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 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.” 8. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, I find no merits in this writ petition. No interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. The prayer of the petitioner regarding consideration on the point of quantum of punishment also stands rejected. 9. In view of facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, the writ petition stands dismissed.